Australia - Russell Hill & Carol Clay Murdered While Camping - Wonnangatta Valley, 2020 #7


Police allege Lynn blasted Ms Clay in the head with a shotgun after getting into an angry confrontation with Mr Hill over the use of his drone in the national park, which is illegal.

. . .

Weed sprayer Robert Williams told the court Mr Hill was a 'grumpy old bugger' who had buzzed him with a drone.

Campers Damir Javor and Goran Miljkovic had seen the couple as they parked their vehicle at a camp site believed to be shared by Lynn.

The pair had been stuck behind the elderly couple as they drove slowly along the track to their campsite, which already had two vehicles parked there.

One of those cars was a white Landcruiser, the other was described as a blue Nissan Patrol - the same type of vehicle seized by police when they arrested Lynn on November 22 last year.
 
Can it really end up with no trial because someone hasn't got funds and is not eligible for legal aid ?
If so is it limbo forever ?

If we have refused to provide someone with assistance for their criminal trial, the court still has the power to order us to provide funding to make sure a trial can proceed fairly. This is in the interests of justice, victims and the community.

. . .

Sometimes we fund or provide a lawyer for an accused person who appears to have enough money to pay for a lawyer. They might live in a nice home or have a successful business, but there are several reasons why they might qualify for help under our guidelines.

Assets that appear to be theirs may be owned by someone else. If they do own assets, they may have been frozen or confiscated by the court. Confiscated assets are often used to compensate victims of crime.

In such situations, the law requires us to provide legal assistance to such a person to make sure their trial goes ahead fairly. We can apply to recoup these costs from the confiscated assets or seek to have the State Government reimburse us.


 

It is understood Lynn had hoped to obtain funds off the back of his Caroline Springs property, which has become the subject of a separate court battle believed to be between his wife and Victoria Police.

The court heard Lynn's prospects of being granted Victorian Legal Aid funding were also under a cloud while he continued to hold substantial assets, albeit tied up under proceedings linked to the Confiscation Act.
 
The court heard Lynn's prospects of being granted Victorian Legal Aid funding were also under a cloud while he continued to hold substantial assets, albeit tied up under proceedings linked to the Confiscation Act.

Mr Dann said an order made in the Supreme Court in December declared Lynn was still linked financially to the family home, which had potential to ruin any application for government assistance.


Per post #445: Seems pretty clear to me that Victoria Legal Aid can fund his case, if push comes to shove.

 
The court heard Lynn's prospects of being granted Victorian Legal Aid funding were also under a cloud while he continued to hold substantial assets, albeit tied up under proceedings linked to the Confiscation Act.

Mr Dann said an order made in the Supreme Court in December declared Lynn was still linked financially to the family home, which had potential to ruin any application for government assistance.


Per post #445: Seems pretty clear to me that Victoria Legal Aid can fund his case, if push comes to shove.

I notice the last line of this article: "Mr Dann committed to representing Lynn in October whether he had funding in place or not.".

If so, then what's the point of all the melodrama created by earlier paragraphs?

JMO
 
I notice the last line of this article: "Mr Dann committed to representing Lynn in October whether he had funding in place or not.".

If so, then what's the point of all the melodrama created by earlier paragraphs?

JMO

Hard to day. Seem to be contrary statements coming from the defence. Maybe they are stalling for extra time? Maybe Dann is having second thoughts about representing him?
 
"Victoria’s Supreme Court was originally set to hear Lynn’s trial for the murder of campers Russell Hill and Carol Clay in October this year, but those dates will now be used for extensive pre-trial argument ahead of a new trial set to start on February 13 next year.

Judicial Registrar Tim Freeman raised concerns about Lynn’s ability to fund his defence after defence barrister Dermot Dann KC confirmed no funding was in place".

New trial date set for Greg Lynn
 
The HS reports today that GL’s home has been seized by the police and depending on the outcome of the trial the proceeds to be split between RH & CC’s families
It also says that his wife became the sole proprietor of the home in January 2022 according to property documents.
Im a bit confused as to how the police can seize the home when it appears his name has been removed from the title. Does anyone know the legalities of this move?
 
The HS reports today that GL’s home has been seized by the police and depending on the outcome of the trial the proceeds to be split between RH & CC’s families
It also says that his wife became the sole proprietor of the home in January 2022 according to property documents.
Im a bit confused as to how the police can seize the home when it appears his name has been removed from the title. Does anyone know the legalities of this move?
I don't the answer to this, SO but I imagine has something to do with changing the ownership after the fact. IMO most likely would not have been able to do this if the house was always just owned by just the wife and ot jointly.
 
I don't the answer to this, SO but I imagine has something to do with changing the ownership after the fact. IMO most likely would not have been able to do this if the house was always just owned by just the wife and ot jointly.
Thanks and that makes sense.
If the home was previously jointly owned then surely his wife would be entitled to at least 50% (or more as she would have custody of the children).
 
And what if he is found to be innocent? Will the police give the house back? It seems very strange to me to take the house before he's even come to trial, let alone found guilty. Surely it can't be legal.
 
And what if he is found to be innocent? Will the police give the house back? It seems very strange to me to take the house before he's even come to trial, let alone found guilty. Surely it can't be legal.
Yes the police would have to release the hold on the house if he’s found to be innocent.
I wonder if his wife has been forced to move out and find alternative accommodation or perhaps she did a while ago as the home and address is now publicaly known
 

A house owned by a former Jetstar pilot accused of murdering two secret lovers while they were camping has been restrained by police.

Greg Lynn, 56, has been prevented from selling his $1million three-bedroom house at Caroline Springs, 33kms west of
Melbourne.

What happens to the house he lived at with his wife and children depends on the outcome of his murder trial in February.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
331
Guests online
939
Total visitors
1,270

Forum statistics

Threads
587,587
Messages
17,885,643
Members
227,162
Latest member
FoxInTheGarden
Back
Top