The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of attempted murder arising from a gasoline-fuelled attack on his estranged spouse and her partner, and also appealed a lengthy penitentiary sentence.
The court held that expert reply evidence on accidental ignition was admissible because the ignition mechanism was only marginally relevant during the Crown's case and became a live issue after the appellant testified.
The court also rejected the challenge to the attempted murder charge, finding that, read as a whole, the instructions made clear that proof of intent to kill was essential.
Given the planned and deliberate nature of the offences and the catastrophic injuries inflicted, leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed.
