A former London metropolitan police officer who blew up his Queensland home in a huge explosion before fraudulently attempting to make an insurance claim has been denied bail.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Eamonn Charles Coughlan applied for bail in the High Court ahead of an appeal hearing against his conviction for arson and fraud following the destruction of his Bribie Island holiday home, north of Brisbane, in July 2015.
But his application was dismissed on Wednesday, with Justice Stephen Gageler saying it would be a serious interference by the court to grant bail when a jury had convicted a defendant.
In any case, Coughlan's appeal hearing had been brought forward to February 12 after a vacancy appeared in the court's schedule, he said.
"Although the appellant by that time will have served the greater part of the custodial period of his sentence, some five months," he said
"There is no reason to expect the decision on the appeal will be handled anything but expeditiously."
Coughlan was jailed for three-and-a-half years in July 2019, suspended after 12 months for four years.
He represented himself at his Brisbane District Court trial, blaming his prosecution for arson on corrupt local police.
Judge Leanne Clare acknowledged there had been "questionable conduct" by Queensland police during their investigation, but he was ultimately found guilty by a jury.
He was also convicted of attempted fraud after making a $435,000 insurance claim, which Judge Clare said would have brought him little profit given he had recently completed a $90,000 renovation on the house.
Coughlan attempted to have his conviction overturned in the Queensland Court of Appeal, however, this was dismissed in April 2019.
He was granted special leave to appeal his conviction in the High Court in October 2019 on the grounds the Court of Appeal improperly weighed the evidence against him and the jury should have "entertained reasonable doubt".
At his bail application, Coughlan's lawyer Stephen Keim argued the Crown's case was based on flawed circumstantial evidence that raised "real questions about the safety of the verdict".
"(They are) confusing things that are properly proven ... and things that are not properly proven, which are of no assistance in regard to establishing a circumstantial case," he said.
"When a person is innocent ... even one day further in custody is too much."
Australian Associated Press
