Accused wife killer's family offers $250,000 bail
Graeme Davidson's family on Wednesday offered $250,000 as surety in an attempt to have him released on bail following the murder charge.
His wife Jacqueline, 54, drowned while kayaking with Davidson at Lake Samsonvale, north of Brisbane, in November 2020.
Davidson, whose home is now in Thailand, was charged with murder in May after a police investigation raised doubts that his wife had died by accident.
Justice Tom Sullivan on Wednesday heard the last of defence and prosecution submissions on Davidson's bail application that had stretched over three days in Queensland Supreme Court.
Crown prosecutor Caroline Marco said Davidson had joked about planning to kill his wife in circumstances that would later come to mirror allegations.
"This was made about three years prior to Jacqueline's death," Ms Marco said.
"Davidson told (another man) if the deceased ever sought a divorce and made a claim to his military pension he would kill her and move to Thailand, which is of course what he allegedly did."
Defence barrister Craig Eberhardt said Davidson's comment had no sinister implication in its full context.
Justice Sullivan heard Davidson had no history of domestic violence.
"He was a major in the Australian army and a captain in the British army. He has no prior criminal record," Mr Eberhardt said.
Mr Eberhardt said Ms Davidson did discover her husband was having an affair in 2018 but by 2020 there were no domestic disputes in the marriage.
Justice Sullivan heard the defence would argue there was no forensic evidence or statements from witnesses at the lake that would show violence towards Ms Davidson.
Mr Eberhardt said Davidson had seen his wife fall into the water while they were riding separate kayaks and he had been prevented from finding her for multiple minutes due to the dark and murky water.
Justice Sullivan heard Ms Davidson could have felt faint from a heart murmur but Ms Marco said there was no evidence from the autopsy to prove a heart condition.
Police have accused Davidson of fraud by making a life insurance claim and attempting to make another after his wife's death to the combined value of more than $1 million.
Mr Eberhardt said the life insurance policy was set up by the couple's financial planner and it would have been suspicious for him not to make a claim.
Ms Marco said Ms Davidson had a life insurance policy that covered for all circumstances but her husband was only covered for accidental death.
Davidson's two daughters offered $50,000 each and his de facto son-in-law $150,000 for surety.
Ms Marco had opposed bail, saying Davidson was a flight risk as he no longer had strong ties to Australia.
Mr Eberhardt said Davidson did not have the resources to flee overseas like notorious Melbourne drug trafficker Tony Mokbel.
"Even Tony Mokbel got caught 10 years later," he said.
Justice Sullivan said he would hand down his bail decision on Friday.
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
Lifeline 13 11 14
Men's Referral Service 1300 766 491
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Complete vindication': Nine wins defamation fight against high-profile surgeon
Grieve said it was an important moment for investigative journalism and recognition of the courageous patients who had spoken out against their doctor. 'This judgment is a complete vindication of the brave patients who had the courage to speak out and an indictment on the doctor who went to war with the people he has a duty to protect,' she said. 'This is an important moment for investigative journalism, and I'm proud of everyone who has worked so hard to defend this important public interest investigation.' Nine, through Collins, had argued Al Muderis had been incapable of admitting his errors and had left patients 'devastated'. 'Our submission is that a surgeon who would treat people so callously, so appallingly … is not a surgeon who deserves a glittering reputation,' Collins said. '[Al Muderis] is a surgeon whose malpractices and unethical conduct have left patients devastated and worse off than before they saw him; is a surgeon who has operated negligently; is a surgeon who has delivered substandard care, leaving patients to fend for themselves; is a surgeon who has not properly cared for his patients; is a surgeon who has made promises that he's not delivered on; is a surgeon whose conduct at times has been appalling and beneath contempt.' Al Muderis' lawyer, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, had argued that Nine had unreasonably painted the surgeon as a 'Dr Frankenstein'. The case was one of the first major tests of the public interest defence for reporting, which allows media companies to argue they reasonably believed their journalism was published in the public interest. Abraham concluded Nine had 'established that the beliefs they held were objectively reasonable' in reaching her conclusion. Loading The surgeon previously called for the identities of confidential sources relied upon by Grieve to be unmasked, but he failed after a judge concluded revealing the sources did not outweigh the public interest in protecting their identities. Abraham said she considered the evidence of 22 patients, who were presented to the court as case studies for osseointegration performed by Al Muderis between 2013 and the publication of the stories. The evidence of four more orthopaedic patients factored into Abraham's reasoning. 'Although [Nine] accepted Dr Al Muderis is, to many, an Australian hero who has devoted much of his life's work to helping amputees walk again, they contended their investigation revealed there is a significant cohort of patients who are unhappy and negatively impacted by Dr Al Muderis' services,' Abraham said. Nine chief executive Matt Stanton said the decision was 'vindication of our reporting and reinforces Nine's longstanding commitment to investigative journalism'. 'Nine welcomes today's judgment by the Federal Court to dismiss Munjed Al Muderis's claims of defamation. The court has confirmed the stories published by The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and aired on 60 Minutes have been successfully defended. Nine's victory today on the basis of public interest is a significant moment in Australian defamation case law,' Stanton said. Leah Mooney was not an osseointegration patient, but she was called to give evidence by Nine in late 2023 about two surgeries Al Muderis had performed on her in Sydney. Al Muderis had left a broken drill bit in her leg in the 2011 operations, triggering a chronic bone infection and then a years-long lawsuit and battles with regulators. On Friday, she celebrated the ruling against Al Muderis with her husband, Tim, saying it was 'a long time coming'. Loading 'It's a feeling of relief and happiness. It's been a long battle and to now think, 'My god, I'm at the end of it,'' Leah said. University of Sydney media law professor David Rolph said the 'comprehensive victory' for the newspapers showed the new public interest defence can succeed, where notoriously flimsy other defences fail in defamation. 'The old statutory qualified privilege defence was notorious in NSW, for many decades, for being unsuccessful and very difficult for media companies to rely on,' Rolph said.
Perth Now
8 hours ago
- Perth Now
'Hero' surgeon loses defamation case against Nine
High-profile orthopedic surgeon Munjed Al Muderis has had defamation proceedings against Nine and three of its journalists dismissed after a court ruled the media company's reporting was in the public interest. Reports published in Nine newspapers and broadcast on 60 Minutes in September 2022 raised concerns over the surgeon's practice. But the Federal Court on Friday ruled the journalists responsible - Charlotte Grieve, Tom Steinfort and Natalie Clancy - held objectively reasonable beliefs information available to the public about the surgeon's practice was critically incomplete. The positive media coverage his practice had enjoyed needed correcting and the investigation revealed another side to the surgeon's work. "That a number of Dr Al Muderis' patients had negative experiences with significant similarities was something the public, especially prospective patients, needed to be informed of," Justice Wendy Abraham said, dismissing the surgeon's defamation application. "Patients should be making their decisions with both sides of the story." The company and its journalists accepted Dr Al Muderis was "an Australian hero" to many, but argued the investigation revealed a significant cohort of patients were left unhappy or negatively impacted by his services. The Iraqi refugee, named a 2020 NSW Australian of the Year, was particularly known for osseointegration surgeries, attaching implants to the bones of amputated limbs. The reporting would have been understood as conveying Dr Al Muderis' practice included using improper sales tactics, misleading patients, providing negligent post-operative care, and prioritising money, fame, and reputation over his patients, Justice Abraham said. But the reports also conveyed many patients had positive experiences. The court accepted Nine's defence of contextual truth, finding some defamatory imputations found to be substantially true were of such seriousness other claimed defamatory imputations would not have further harmed the surgeon's reputation. The case was one of the first significant tests of the public interest defence to defamation introduced in 2021. The ABC earlier failed in its attempt to use the defence in relation to reports which defamed former army commando Heston Russell.
Sydney Morning Herald
9 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Privacy watchdog sues Optus over mass data breach
'We strive every day to protect our customers' information and have been working hard to minimise any impact the cyberattack may have had. As the matter is now before the Australian courts, Optus will not be commenting further at this time.' Optus is already facing Federal Court claims by Australia's communications watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, over the cyberattack. The watchdog claims Optus should have known it had a flaw in its system four years before its customers' data was stolen in 2022. The cyberattack kicked off a hellish period for Australia's second-largest telco, which suffered a separate 12-hour outage about a year later. Optus lost thousands of customers as a result of the outage and CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin and other top executives resigned soon after. Bayer Rosmarin was later replaced by former NBN Co chief Stephen Rue. The Optus breach also led to tougher penalties for serious or repeated breaches of customer data; organisations that fail to adequately protect people's data now face fines of $50 million or more. The peak communications consumer body, ACCAN, said it was hopeful the court action would drive cultural change in the telco sector. In June, Optus agreed to pay $100 million in penalties over 'unconscionable conduct' related to selling vulnerable customers products they could not afford or use. 'This court action demonstrates how far short Optus fell from what consumers expect and deserve from their telcos,' ACCAN chief executive Carol Bennett said. 'We have a long way to go to remedy the sorts of practices and behaviours we have seen from Optus over the past few years. It paints a picture of a telco that has lost sight of its obligation to consumers in delivering an essential service that consumers need and rely upon. 'Changing that culture won't be easy and this very significant action from [the Information Commissioner's office] is yet another wake-up call … It seems Optus have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to accepting their moral and ethical responsibility to Australians.' Loading Tom Sulston, the head of policy of lobby group Digital Rights Watch, also welcomed the action and said businesses should be minimising the amount of personal information they store, and the period for which they hold it. He also described the move as a further case for privacy reform. 'As a rule, companies do tend to hang on to more information than they need and for longer than they need it. Some of that is due to regulation – such as metadata retention – but plenty is down to companies' desire to find ways to monetise our information,' he said.
