IAN Conway's evidence that he was acting in self-defence when he stabbed his mate to death was "barely plausible" and "lacking detail" and the jury was correctly not discharged due to inflammatory comments about the killer's "horrifying" reputation for violence, the Court of Criminal Appeal has found.
Conway did not deny the stabbing but claimed he was acting in self-defence after he was confronted by a drug-affected and armed Mr Ward.
The jury rejected his claims and accepted the evidence of the key witness, who said Mr Ward had earlier been behaving erratically but had calmed down when Conway produced two knives and challenged him to a "muck around" play fight.
When Mr Ward refused, the key witness said Conway lunged at him and stabbed him in the stomach, the wound causing his death.
Those comments, made during cross-examination, were that Conway had a "horrifying" reputation, had a "reputation for hurting people" and that the key witness thought Conway might rob her because "that's his MO."
After hearing the appeal in September, Justice John Basten delivered judgment on Friday, saying, when viewed in the context of the trial, the impugned evidence was not realistically capable of influencing the jury's verdict because of Conway's own evidence about violence.
"The central issue was whether the evidence of [Conway] might have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the account given by [the key witness]," Justice Basten said.
"That is implausible for a number of reasons.
"First, on Conway's own evidence, when accused of ripping off a friend by stealing his drugs, he picked up a knife and offered it to the friend while saying he would fight him with his bare hands.
"Secondly, on his own account, when his friend picked up the knife and approached him, he immediately grabbed a knife himself and struck the first and only blow in circumstances where he could not describe any direct threat or menacing statement or conduct.
"Thirdly, he gave evidence that he himself had been stabbed in the past and 'it's just not nice'."
Justice Basten said the jury were given a firm direction by the trial judge to put aside any comments about Conway's reputation and the reputation evidence was of "little, even minimal, significance".
And in relation to the unreasonable verdict ground, Justice Basten said the key witnesses's evidence was "consistent and plausible", while Conway's evidence was "sparse as to detail and barely plausible".
"Reading the whole of the evidence, I do not entertain a reasonable doubt as to the prosecution case," Justice Basten said.
He dismissed the appeal meaning Conway will have to serve the remainder of his maximum 16-year jail term.
