The Court of Appeal has dismissed Ross Outram’s appeal against his conviction for murdering Patrick Lyons, rejecting all seven grounds pursued by the defence. The court also refused an application to introduce a forensic report about blood staining on Lyons’s hat.
Lyons, who was 90 and lived alone, was found dead after an incident at his home on the night of 24 February 2017. At trial, Outram admitted beating Lyons but said he had acted in self-defence and left while Lyons was still alive. A jury found Outram guilty of murder on 8 March 2019.
On appeal, the defence argued that the prosecution had not established that Outram’s assault caused Lyons’s hip fracture, which contributed to his death. It said the fracture could have resulted from a later, independent fall. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to leave causation to the jury. The medical evidence described death as resulting from multiple factors, including blunt-force injuries and a shattered hip, and the court said there was evidence capable of showing that the assault contributed to death in more than a minimal way.
The appeal court also rejected challenges to the judge’s directions on whether Lyons’s age, health and injuries could be considered when assessing a possible fall, and on evidence about Outram’s claimed Xanax use and withdrawal symptoms. It found no error in those directions.
The remaining grounds concerned Lyons’s hat, which the jury asked to see during deliberations and asked whether it had blood on it. The trial judge clarified that the hat had not been examined and that there was no evidence it was blood-free. He told jurors that if their examination raised a reasonable possibility that blood was present, they should draw no inference against Outram from the State’s failure to examine it.
The Court of Appeal refused the defence request to suspend deliberations for a forensic examination. It said the trial judge had discretion in exceptional circumstances to recall a witness, but that this did not extend to stopping deliberations so a party could seek fresh evidence. The appellate court separately refused leave to introduce a later report recording light blood staining, mostly on the outside of the hat, with insufficient DNA for a profile. It found the evidence could reasonably have been obtained before trial and was not materially important in the context of the case.
The court found no merit in the challenges to the hat direction or the refusal to discharge the jury. It dismissed the appeal.