David Charles Edgerley, 40, was sentenced to life imprisonment in September 2022 after being found guilty by a jury of murdering Victor Graveson.

In September 2017, Edgerley doused Mr Graveson in petrol and set him alight as the 65-year-old slept at his Alexandra Hills home before holding a door closed to ensure there was no escape.

Mr Graveson survived the initial attack and was able to name Edgerley as the person responsible before he died three days later with burns to 80 per cent of his body.

The Brisbane Court of Appeal on Thursday heard an application for leave to appeal based on Edgerley’s claim there had been a “miscarriage of justice”.

Edgerley’s barrister, Peter O’Connor, told the court that the crown prosecutor’s closing address to the jury had “blurred lines” over the effect his client’s drug use had on the issue of intent.

“The sole issue in the jury’s determination was intent … the complicating feature is how the jury were invited to use the evidence pertaining to (Edgerley’s) drug use in proof of that element of the charge,” he said.

Mr O’Connor said there were questions over whether Edgerley had the capability of forming intent in his mind given his disordered thinking and hallucinations.

The crown prosecutor told the jury in 2022 that Edgerley had been high on methamphetamine for three days prior to the attack, believing at times he was either Jesus, a member of the British royal family or trapped in a reality TV series like The Truman Show.

The prosecutor also said Edgerley had a belief that a family member was under threat from Mr Graveson, who had links to drug trafficking.

Mr O’Connor said anything said by the judge, defence or prosecutors during the trial about intent would have attracted a lot of attention from the jury.

“The way that motive was then blended into intent by the prosecutor’s submission blurred the lines,” he said.

In court on Thursday, Justice Debra Mullins said Mr O’Connor would have difficulty with the appeal as the judge in the trial had given an excellent summary of the evidence to the jury and clear instructions on the decisions it had to make.

Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions said she agreed with the observations by two of the appeal justices about potential weaknesses in the grounds for overturning the conviction.

“The two sentences (in the closing address) now subject to complaint ought to be looked at in context in overall submissions made by the crown prosecutor … It is not a miscarriage of justice,” she said.

Justice Mullins said the court of appeal would reserve its decision.

Lifeline 13 11 14

beyondblue 1300 22 4636