Max Sica's trial should not have had a jury or evidence of footprints at crime scene introduced, Court of Appeal told

LAWYERS for convicted murderer Max Sica tell Court of Appeal his trial should not have had a jury because of prejudicial pre-trial publicity.

Max Sica

LAWYERS for convicted triple murderer Max Sica have appealed his convictions arguing evidence relating to footprints found at the crime scene should not have been introduced and that a judge-only trial should have taken place.

His legal team has also told the Court of Appeal in Brisbane that Sica's sentence was "manifestly excessive".

A Brisbane Supreme Court jury last year found Massimo "Max" Sica guilty of murdering Singh siblings Neelma, 24, Kunal, 18 and Sidhi, 12.

He was sentenced to three life terms with a minimum non-parole period of 35 years for the April 2003 murders.

Sica appealed the convictions and the case has been heard in the Court of Appeal in Brisbane today.

His legal team have argued that a judge-only trial should have taken place rather than a jury determining the case because of substantial pre-trial publicity that was prejudicial.

They have also argued that a jury should not have heard some evidence relating to footprints found in the house and information Sica gave in police statements.

Barrister Tony Glynn said the jury was given no method of evaluating opinions given by experts who had found the footprints were consistent with Sica's prints and that they could not exclude him as the source.

"It may be consistent with those particular feet, that is of the appellant, and 80 per cent of the community, it may be a much smaller number," he said.

"It is impossible in our submission for the jury to make anything of the evidence other than by accepting the opinion was consistent."

He said the evidence of the footprints potentially was " in many senses the best evidence" that would place or not place the Sica at the scene and that there had been no dispute the prints had been left by someone around the time of the murders.

He said information provided to the court had the potential to be "quite harmful" to Sica's case and because the jury had been given information by people described as experts there was a "grave risk" jury members could not make a decision for themselves about the information provided.

The defence has also argued the non-parole period should have been of 25 to 30 years.

But Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan said the evidence about the footprints was admissible because experts had only given an opinion that they could not exclude Sica in a circumstantial case and the information was open to cross examination.

The matter is before Justice John Muir, Justice Robert Gotterson and Justice Peter Applegarth.

They have reserved their decision.