The man convicted of killing Toyah Cordingley on a beach walk now argues the jury that found him guilty should never have been able to deliver their verdict.
Ms Cordingley, a 24-year-old animal lover from Far North Queensland, was killed in October 2018 while on a walk with her dog along Wangetti Beach, about 40km north of Cairns.
Her father found her the next morning, half buried in the sand.
Her convicted murderer, Rajwinder Singh, 42, was sentenced to life in prison in December last year for brutally stabbing the young woman and slashing her throat before burying her in a shallow grave.
He pleaded not guilty at trial.
On Tuesday, Singh appealed his conviction and what his legal team labelled a “manifestly excessive” sentence in the Brisbane Supreme Court.
Barrister Saul Holt KC argued Singh’s trial, and ensuing conviction, should not have gone ahead after a juror was discharged partway through the trial without further investigation.
The appeal court was told a jury representative wrote a note to the judge stating another juror had reportedly made comments to select jury members, bringing into question his impartiality.
The juror also allegedly made remarks about his dislike for the police and a personal history of violence, according to the jury note.
As such, the trial Justice Lincoln Crowley ultimately ordered the singular juror be dismissed; however, he did not dismiss the entire jury.
The appeal court was told Justice Crowley made no further inquiries with jurors regarding the legitimacy of the reported issues, instead relying on the written note.
Mr Holt argued the decision to discharge the juror weighed on the opinion of the reporting juror and not on strict evidence of a potential bias or impartiality.
“There was a statement that something had been brought in, and to not know what that was, was not a proper way to proceed in this trial,” he said.
He further argued it was a miscarriage of justice that only one juror was discharged rather than the entire jury.
“One would need to find out more, and if one couldn’t … the only proper conclusion is to discharge the whole jury,” Mr Holt said.
The Court of Appeal judges also discussed if there was a possibility the reporting juror and the dismissed juror had a “personality clash” that could have led to the note being written.
Mr Holt also outlined several other grounds, including jurors who were supposedly separated during parts of the trial reportedly allowed to roam in small groups and break away while at a site inspection of the gravesite at Wangetti Beach.
He argued not all jurors witnessed the same evidence at the site.
Mr Holt went on to argue directions given by Justice Crowley regarding the case against Ms Cordingley’s boyfriend at the time, Marco Heidenreich, and elements of the prosecution closing were also unjust, leading to a wrongful conviction.
The barrister further noted a non-parole period of 25 years, set at sentencing, was “manifestly excessive”, comparing to cases of a similar nature.
Crown prosecutor Todd Fuller KC argued the ruling was in line with the law, adding there were risks to asking questions of the jury in case elements of their deliberation were accidentally disclosed.
“A person who is not impartial should not be selected for the jury,” he said.
“His Honour was aware of the circumstances and His Honour made a determination.”
Mr Fuller argued the jury, during the site inspection, was monitored by police and kept away from outside influence.
The court was adjourned, with Mr Fuller to continue his argument on Tuesday afternoon.
More to come