O’Dempsey appeals over McCulkin conviction

A MAN who was convicted of the 1974 murders of a Brisbane mother and her two daughters has claimed in his appeal there was a miscarriage of justice, on several grounds.

Vincent O’Dempsey last year was convicted of the murders of Barbara McCulkin, 32, and daughters Vicki, 13, and Leanne, 11, and deprivation of liberty.

Counsel for O’Dempsey, Justin Greggery QC, yesterday told the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of motive of Gary Dubois.

In 2016, Dubois was found guilty of raping and murdering Vicki and Leanne McCulkin and the manslaughter of Barbara McCulkin.

The Crown case in O’Dempsey’s trial was that he had been at the McCulkins’ Highgate Hill house with Dubois earlier on the night they disappeared.

The trial judge allowed evidence that Dubois was involved with others in the arson of the Torino nightclub and Mrs McCulkin had some knowledge of the arson.

The prosecution case was that O’Dempsey had a motive to kill Mrs McCulkin, to assist his friend Dubois in silencing her about the Torino firebombing.

Evidence given by a witness that O’Dempsey said “When you got paid to do a job, you did a job”, was used by the Crown to suggest another motive to silence Mrs McCulkin.

Mr Greggery argued the evidence led to show motive was weak and extremely prejudicial and “rendered explicable what might otherwise have been inexplicable”.

He said if motive evidence had been excluded, the evidence of several other witnesses would not have been introduced in O’Dempsey’s trial.

“The undue focus on the evidence of motive, together with the absence of warnings on the permissible use of this evidence... rendered the appellant’s trial unfair,” the submissions said.

The appeal court also was told the trial judge should not have admitted evidence of Barbara’s husband, Billy McCulkin’s statement to police, made two weeks after the trio’s disappearance.

It was also submitted that the judge’s directions as to assessment of witnesses’ evidence and fact-finding went beyond the bounds of permissible directions.

The judge had conveyed that the defence suggestion that Billy McCulkin may have committed the murders was not a reasonable hypothesis and had been excluded.

In respect of three witnesses’ evidence of confessions by O’Dempsey, the judge made comments or counter arguments which favoured the prosecution, it was submitted.

The hearing is continuing.