Legal Research
Cases
Feetham v The King

Feetham v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 179 7 August 2025

Appeal

Conviction

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Jury Directions

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0241

ASHLEY FEETHAM	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON P, BOYCE and ORR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 August 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 179
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VSC 676 (Kaye JA)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Unreasonable jury verdict – Two brothers stabbed by applicant in altercation at house – Wounds to one brother fatal – Inconsistent accounts from witnesses – Whether applicant was aggressor or acted in self-defence – Whether open to jury to accept surviving brother’s account of stabbing despite demonstrable lies about circumstances leading up to altercation – Leave to appeal refused.

Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Directions given by trial judge – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Sections 63 and 64 of Jury Directions Act 2015 – Whether error to direct jury prior to evidence being adduced that ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ are plain ordinary English words that mean what they say and do not admit of any better definition – Whether such direction constituted an explanation of the standard of proof – Whether such direction impermissibly precluded jury from asking questions about the standard of proof – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 63 and 64.

Farshchi v The King [2024] VSCA 235; Karam v The King [2023] VSCA 318; Awad v The Queen (2022) 275 CLR 421; Subramaniamv The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Carr SC with Mr H Rattray
Respondent:		Mr D Glynn with Ms R Barrett
Solicitors
Applicant:	Balmer & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON P
BOYCE JA
ORR JA:

Following a 13-day trial before a judge of this Court in October 2023, the applicant was convicted of one count of murdering Dylan Bond and one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Dylan’s younger brother, Heath Bond.[1]
[1]The charge of murder was contrary to common law. The charge of intentionally causing serious injury was contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958.
The charges arose out of events that occurred on the afternoon of Monday 26 April 2021 at a house at 2A Fagg Street in Thomson, a suburb of Geelong. Heath Bond had previously resided at this address with Abbey Sexton, to whom he had been engaged. The relationship had recently broken down and Heath had moved out of the house. Abbey had commenced a relationship with the applicant. On the afternoon of 26 April 2021, the applicant was at the Fagg Street address. Heath arrived at the house with his brother, Dylan. During the minutes that followed, Dylan was stabbed multiple times with a kitchen knife, Heath…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Feetham v The King

Details

AGLC: Feetham v The King [2025] VSCA 179
Case: [2025] VSCA 179
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Feetham v The King, the appellant, Feetham, appealed against his conviction for the murder of one of his brothers during a violent altercation. The incident involved the stabbing of two brothers, with the wounds inflicted on one brother proving fatal. The surviving brother provided an account of the incident, although it was inconsistent and contained demonstrable lies about the events leading up to the altercation. The appellant argued that he acted in self-defence and was not the aggressor. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury could reasonably accept the surviving brother's account of the stabbing, given its inconsistencies and lies, and whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in giving directions to the jury about the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt prior to the evidence being adduced.

The court examined the evidence and testimonies presented during the trial and assessed the credibility and consistency of the accounts given by the witnesses. The court considered whether the jury, as the trier of fact, could reasonably accept the surviving brother's account of the stabbing despite its inconsistencies and lies. The court also evaluated whether the trial judge's direction to the jury about the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt constituted an explanation of the standard of proof and whether such direction impermissibly precluded the jury from asking questions about the standard of proof. The court ultimately concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and that the trial judge's direction did not constitute an error.

The court granted the appellant leave to appeal on the issue of the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, upon considering the evidence and the trial judge's direction in the context of the entire trial, the court found no error in the direction and dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder.

Orders