A High Court challenge to the downgrading of Gerard Baden-Clay's murder conviction shouldn't go ahead because the decision doesn't raise any "questions of law of public importance", his legal team claims.
Queensland's Court of Appeal last December set aside the one-time Brisbane real estate agent's conviction and replaced it with manslaughter for killing his wife Allison in 2012.
The controversial decision led to an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal being lodged by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Michael Byrne QC.
But such an appeal is unnecessary because the Queensland court's decision "raises no question of law of public importance", a summary of argument filed by Baden-Clay's legal team on Monday says.
"And the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in this particular case, do not require this Court to consider the judgment."
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
It claims the court was right to find the guilty verdict was unreasonable because there remained a "reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder" - that Baden-Clay had committed an act causing Allison's death that wasn't intended to kill her or inflict grievous bodily harm.
Baden-Clay's legal team also suggest the Court of Appeal was justified in finding a trio of pressures - his marriage, his mistress and his business - didn't point to a compelling motive to kill, adding that the prosecution hadn't relied on a motive when pushing the murder charge.
In their own summary of argument filed on February 1, the DPP claimed the Queensland court made a mistake in finding evidence of Baden-Clay's lies, disguised wounds and disposal of his wife's body was "intractably neutral" when it came to establishing intent.
It was also claimed his desire to be with his mistress could point to an intent to murder Allison, rather than manslaughter, noting: "The yearning of a man to be with another woman has for a long time been regarded as relevant to the question of intent."
The DPP will now have seven days to file a reply.
