Baden-Clay’s ultimate undoing
GERARD Baden-Clay's myriad lies were his ultimate undoing.
He lied about scratches on his face and the disposal of his wife Allison's body and sought to hide motivations for murder.
Because he told police and swore on oath before a jury that he had no involvement in his wife's death, he negated any alternative theory that his wife's death was an accident.
For this reason, the High Court has reinstated his original murder conviction.
Baden-Clay has no further grounds or basis for appeal.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment and will serve a minimum of 15 years behind bars before he can be considered for parole
Baden-Clay was convicted two years ago of murdering his wife Allison and dumping her body on a bank at Kholo Creek in 2012
The case ended up in Australia's highest court when the Queensland Court of Appeal last year downgraded the murder conviction to manslaughter.
That court found there was a reasonable hypothesis for a possible physical confrontation where a subsequent fall could have caused Allison's death, meaning the death could have been unintentional.
But the High Court on Wednesday delivered a judgment saying that was "mere speculation or conjecture rather than acknowledgment of a hypothesis available on the evidence".
The judgment detailed how Baden-Clay gave evidence at his own trial that did not support the hypothesis he could have unintentionally caused Allison's death.
"He denied that he had fought with his wife, killed her and disposed of her body," the judgment read.
"The Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that it was unreasonable for the jury to find on the whole of the evidence that (Allison's) death at (her husband's) hands was intentional.
"(Baden-Clay) gave evidence, which not only did not support the scenario hypothesised by the Court of Appeal, but was inconsistent with that scenario.
"On his evidence he simply was not present when her death occurred; and he could not have been the unintentional cause of her death."
Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts said this case had been arguably one of the most high-profile and emotive cases in the state's legal history.
But he asked everyone to respect and embrace the High Court's decision.
"There has been a significant amount of public interest with respect to this matter and I think that's a good thing," he said.
"The public must own the justice system.
"That the best of all possible minds can disagree about fundamental things is merely a sign the justice system is a human system and that it works." - ARM NEWSDESK