The case illustrates the application of the unreasonable verdict test in a circumstantial murder case where the absence of gunshot residue and DNA on the accused was insufficient to render the verdict unreasonable in the face of overwhelming evidence of threats, admissions, and forensic inconsistencies with the defence version. A non-parole period of 22 years (two years above the 20-year statutory minimum under s 305(2) of the Criminal Code) was upheld where the murders involved a defenceless child victim and were committed in defiance of a domestic violence protection order.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.