A Queensland meatworker jailed for all times for the stunning beheading of his good friend has appealed his homicide conviction.
Mohammed Khan was convicted in February for the 2016 homicide of Syeid Alam, 33, over a love triangle between Khan’s spouse and Mr Alam’s brother, Shah Alam.
The Rockhampton man, who maintained his innocence via his trial, has now requested Queensland’s Courtroom of Attraction to quash the conviction.
A jury discovered Khan had murdered Alam by beheading him whereas the pair had been on a fishing journey in April 2016.
Alam’s headless physique was discovered on the banks of Rockhampton’s Fitzroy River after he was reported lacking and his head was discovered close by, wrapped in a pair of denims.
Throughout Tuesday’s attraction, defence barrister Michael Copley QC argued the jury was misdirected on Khan’s alleged motive to kill.
Khan, clad in jail greens and aided by an interpreter, sat silently throughout the proceedings.
Mr Copley referred to a confrontation between Khan and Sha Alam at a neighborhood mosque after the sufferer was reported lacking, the place Khan threatened him over the discharge of express pictures of his spouse.
He argued Khan’s menace in the direction of Sha Alam on the mosque may have demonstrated he was offended and upset at his spouse’s affair however the route given to the jury incorrectly inferred an intent to kill.
“If there is evidence in the prosecution case that… might leave open an inference in favour of an innocent interpretation or in support of a reasonable doubt, then it is not required the jury have to accept the evidence,” Mr Copley advised the courtroom.
Mr Copley mentioned telephone proof and CCTV footage relied on by the Crown to show Khan’s actions on the night time of the homicide weren’t sufficient to determine he really killed Mr Alam.
“Although out of his house in the relevant period, the appellant was not at the riverbank,” he mentioned.
Crown prosecutor Dzenita Balic mentioned there was no threat of miscarriage as the combination power of the proof was sufficient to fulfill the prosecution’s burden of proof.
Justices Walter Sofronoff, Philip Morris and Debra Mullins reserved their selections.