Noelene June Jordan and Cedric Harper Jordan, a married couple in their 70s, received 22-year prison sentences in 2023 for the murder of 36-year-old Shane Barker, which occurred in 2009. The couple’s actions stemmed from their negative feelings towards Barker, whom they accused of being abusive toward their daughter, Rachel, and granddaughter.
Barker was shot four times in the night with quiet .22 calibre bullets that were fired from a firearm equipped with a silencer. The court found that both Jordans went to the location of the incident together with a mutual intent, and that Cedric Jordan, who had extensive experience handling firearms, was the one who discharged the weapon.
The Jordans have since appealed their conviction, arguing that the jury’s guilty verdict does not meet the required standard for certainty. They also allege that alternative theories regarding the murder were not adequately considered, particularly given that the actual murder weapon has never been discovered. Notably, the same type of ammunition found at the scene was also located at the Jordans’ holiday shack, leading Mrs. Jordan’s lawyer, Fran McCracken, to suggest that Barker might have previously used the weapon at that location.
McCracken argued that it was possible the unregistered firearm could have changed hands and been used by an unidentified third party to carry out the murder. She critiqued the prosecution’s case, highlighting that both Jordans maintained they had no knowledge of who the actual perpetrator was.
However, Crown prosecutor Daryl Coates dismissed this notion as unrealistic, emphasising that the Jordans had a strong motive for the murder, provided false alibis, and were linked to the crime scene via phone records. Evidence presented at the trial indicated that they had access to a .22 unregistered rifle, which Mr. Jordan had previously remarked would be effective for murder.
The Jordans are also challenging their conviction based on claims that a demonstration conducted during the trial was prejudicial, and that a relationship between a juror and a reserve juror may have influenced the jury’s decision-making.
Justice Robert Pearce, who presided over the sentencing, noted that the Jordans were highly protective of Rachel and their granddaughter, believing Barker had acted inappropriately towards them. While he acknowledged that the abuse claims were unlikely, he stated that this was not a matter for the trial to determine.
A decision regarding the Jordans’ appeal is pending and will be announced at a later date.