The man found guilty of murdering Christopher Ward at Broadmeadow is appealing his conviction, claiming a witness made prejudicial and inadmissible comments during his trial that should have resulted in the jury being discharged.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Ian Matthew Conway was sentenced to a maximum of 16 years in jail in Newcastle Supreme Court earlier this year for fatally stabbing Mr Ward, 56, at a Broadmeadow Road unit in March 2021.
Mr Ward died in John Hunter Hospital two days after he suffered the stab wound to his stomach.
The key issue in the 2022 trial was self defence. Conway did not deny stabbing Mr Ward but pleaded not guilty to murder - he claimed he was acting to protect himself after Mr Ward walked towards him with a knife.
IN THE NEWS
- Council resists government pressure on Supercars deal
- Urban heat, car reduction, street trees in overhaul of development control plan
- Meet Lake Macquarie's new deputy mayor in all-female leadership team
- 'Steel city' moniker lost, and that's a shame
- Knights prop plays through pain barrier to reach decider
The guilty verdict meant the jury rejected Conway's evidence that he was defending himself when he stabbed Mr Ward.
His barrister Susan Kluss, SC, told the Court of Criminal Appeals in Sydney on Wednesday that several comments made by a witness during the trial had a cumulative effect of making Conway unfairly appear to be a "violent thief", and were prejudicial and inadmissible.
Ms Kluss argued that the jury should have been discharged in the interest of Conway receiving a fair trial.
She said the allegedly inadmissible comments "went to the heart of the trial and the jury would have been affected by that".
"This was something that went specifically to the propensity of the accused and his character," she said.
"The point here is that the jury had been so prejudiced by those comments ... it would have also affected the way in which they received the evidence of the appellant [Conway].
"It would necessarily have coloured their view of the appellant ... so it has to be significant in whether or not they [the jury] should have entertained a doubt."
The Crown said it was not a case where failure to discharge a jury resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Mr Newton, the Senior Counsel representing the Crown, said the comments from the witness were in response to questions and "it was not a situation where there was an agreement that these answers were unhelpful".
Mr Newton said the defence counsel could have raised concerns about the alleged "cumulative" effects of the witness' comments with the judge during the trial, when the jury was out of the courtroom.
"There were plenty of opportunities to raise the issue," he said.
The three-judge panel reserved its decision to a later date.
