Lundy applies to Supreme Court
Mark Lundy’s bid to overturn his convictions for murdering his wife and daughter argues the Court of Appeal was wrong when it ruled no miscarriage of justice took place at his retrial, which included scientific evidence that should not have been allowed.
Lundy’s legal team also says the jury at his retrial should have received a warning about placing too much importance on his demeanour, according to a ‘‘notice of application’’ seeking permission for a Supreme Court hearing.
The six-page document, released to Stuff, outlines the reasons Lundy’s lawyers say New Zealand’s highest court should hear his case, after his appeal to the Court of Appeal was last year dismissed.
Lundy, 60, was convicted for a second time in 2015 of killing wife Christine, 38, and daughter Amber, 9, in their Palmerston North home in the early hours of an August 2000 morning. Lundy says he was away on business in Wellington.
His seven-week retrial, which heard from about 140 witnesses, included evidence from Dutch scientist Dr Laetitia Sijen. Using a technique called RNA, Sijen concluded it was 58 per cent probable that tissue in a stain on a polo shirt found in Lundy’s car was human brain or spinal cord.
The Court of Appeal found this evidence should never have been allowed at the retrial, because it was scientifically invalid, but still dismissed Lundy’s appeal.
The Supreme Court application notice says the Court of Appeal ruling failed to take into account the ‘‘illegitimate and unfair bolstering effect’’ of the evidence, and the unfairness of Lundy having to respond to inadmissible evidence.
At both of Lundy’s trials, the Crown has presented evidence from Texan pathologist Dr Rodney Miller, who, using a technique called immunohistochemistry, identified tissue on Lundy’s shirt as brain matter. Christine Lundy’s DNA was also found on the shirt.
The application notice says it is in the public interest for the Supreme Court to consider ‘‘whether evidence such as the IHC evidence, that has not received mainstream scientific acceptance in a forensic setting, meets the standard of scientific validity required for such evidence to be substantially helpful and therefore admissible ...’’
Lundy’s lawyers also say the retrial judge should have given the jury a warning to not undertake ‘‘demeanour reasoning by reference to an event that takes place outside of the trial’’, in Lundy’s case, ‘‘infamous’’ television coverage of him overcome with emotion at his wife and daughter’s funeral.
Lundy’s lead defence lawyer Jonathan Eaton, QC, said full submissions were filed in February. The Crown had until last week to file its reply. The Supreme Court will now decide whether it will hear Lundy’s appeal.
Lundy is serving a life sentence in jail, with a 20-year minimum period. He has been in custody since early 2001, although he spent about 18 months on bail after the Privy Council in 2013 overturned his convictions and ordered the retrial.