Lawyers for convicted double murderer Scott Alexander McDougall say their client's frenzied attack was not the work of a rational man.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
They have argued their client was ''partly deranged'' when he attacked his first victim with a meat cleaver, and had thought he was in a ''fight to the death''.
But the Crown has rejected their claim, and told three appeal judges the man's lawyers had overstated the threat victim Struan Bolas posed.
McDougall is serving life sentences for the murders of Mr Bolas, 48, and Julie Tattersall, 35, at Mr Bolas' Downer home in September 2008.
In March, 2011, McDougall became the first person to be convicted of murder in the ACT for more than a decade.
He has appealed against his conviction for the murder of Mr Bolas, arguing trial judge Malcolm Gray failed to properly explain his reasons for dismissing the self-defence claim.
McDougall's legal team says the conviction amounted to a miscarriage of justice as a result.
McDougall has taken no issue with the conviction for Ms Tattersall's murder, and even if the court upholds the appeal he is likely to spend many more years in prison.
Under territory law, no non-parole period can be attached to a life sentence but after serving 10 years a prisoner can ask authorities to be released on licence.
The killings occurred after the three friends had been drinking for a number of hours at Mr Bolas' home.
The court heard they were ''f---ing around playing'', but McDougall argued things became heated when Mr Bolas was accused of being a ''dog'', or helping police.
At the trial and in the wake of the killing McDougall said the other man ''come at me'' with the cleaver but he managed to disarm and injure Mr Bolas.
McDougall then proceeded to hit Mr Bolas repeatedly with the cleaver - he would later tell a friend he ''finished him off'' - before turning on Ms Tattersall.
McDougall, who was 34 at the time, then set fire to the house by stuffing paper in the toaster and drove away, later dumping his bloodied clothes at the Mugga Lane tip.
At the trial, McDougall argued he had killed Mr Bolas in self-defence.
But Justice Gray found the killer's response was disproportionate to the threat posed by the heavily drunk Mr Bolas.
And he said McDougall's retelling of events to witness Stanley Djokic, and his actions in the aftermath such as setting the house on fire, showed his cognitive functioning wasn't impaired.
McDougall's counsel, Peter Hastings, QC, told the ACT Court of Appeal the ferocity of McDougall's attack indicated his client was ''partly deranged''.
The barrister said the irrationality and McDougall's intoxication at the time, estimated at a blood alcohol concentration of .21 and .28, were relevant to his belief Mr Bolas was a threat.
And Mr Hastings said the ''violent disposition'' of Mr Bolas and the fact he kept weapons around the house made McDougall believe he was in a ''fight to the death''.
''His reaction, clouded by alcohol, is to fight to the death so that he can stay safe,'' he said.
But the Director of Public Prosecutions, Jon White, argued Mr Hastings overstated the threat Mr Bolas posed And he said the defence team, in highlighting the frenzied nature of the attack as proof of irrationality, was ''subtly'' relying on a different defence from the trial. He also questioned how, if McDougall was so deranged, he could have gauged the risk of a disarmed, injured Mr Bolas grabbing another weapon from somewhere in the house.
The three appeal court judges - Justice John Burns, Justice Richard Refshauge and Justice Hilary Penfold - have reserved their decision.