Tense bail wait

By Paul Dunlop
DIANE Griffey could be behind bars for at least a year while waiting to stand trial for the murder of her exhusband if her bid for bail fails.
At a hearing in the Supreme Court last Thursday, Justice Betty King reserved her decision on whether to grant bail to the 42yearold mother of three.
Ms Griffey is charged with murdering her estranged husband Michael in December last year.
The court was told she could remain in custody for up to 15 months until her case reaches trial.
Defence lawyer Christopher Dane, QC, had argued his client should be granted bail because her children were struggling to cope with the situation both financially and emotionally.
But prosecutor Jeremy Rapke, QC, said the family’s business was generating sufficient income to maintain payments to finance companies and wages.
“That’s an inevitable consequence of any breadwinner being jailed, that the finances available to the family will be severely limited,” he said.
Justice King will hand down her decision on a date to be fixed. But she agreed with Mr Dane’s assertion that the prosecution case was circumstantial.
“It is not a particularly strong circumstantial case, where you would be saying confidentially the only inference is that she is guilty of this murder,” Justice King said.
“It depends very much on how the witnesses give their evidence and whether they are admissible. But it’s not a case where there is just no case that the Crown can argue on.”
The bail hearing was the latest development in a murder mystery that has shocked Pakenham and become the subject of statewide attention.
The body of Michael Griffey, 45, was found in the garage of the family home in Ahern Road by his wife and the couple’s youngest daughter Cassy on 2 January.
Police believe Mr Griffey had been dead for up to four days when his body was discovered.
Last week’s Supreme Court hearing was told that Ms Griffey was the sole beneficiary of her husband’s premium insurance policies and that she stood to gain $1.54 million from his death.
The insurance payout has been touted as a possible motive for Mr Griffey’s murder.
But Mr Dane said the insurance company had advised it would not pay any money to Ms Griffey and any payout would go to the couple’s three children.
Mr Dane said the insurance policies had been in existence for a decade and the beneficiaries had never changed.
The defence lawyer described the case against her client as “not a powerful and overwhelming case”. He said it was based on circumstantial evidence.
Justice King emphasised the question of whether Ms Griffey was guilty would be for a jury to decide.
A contest mention is scheduled for 26 April.