‘I’m no dangerous criminal’: Man convicted of attempted murder wages appeal battle

“I’m no dangerous criminal that needs to be chained up.” A Hobart man found guilty of trying to murder his girlfriend by setting her on fire is waging a battle to overturn his conviction.

Matthew John Davey. Picture supplied

Matthew John Davey is expected to serve nearly two decades in jail after he was convicted of dousing his girlfriend in petrol, then setting her ablaze with the flick of a cigarette lighter.

But the 40-year-old has waged a complex legal battle against both his attempted murder conviction and his 18-year prison term.

Nicole Evans, then 20, suffered life-threatening injuries with burns to 68 per cent of her body and placed in an induced coma, after she was engulfed in flames at Chigwell in April 2017.

Davey was found guilty in December 2021 of attempted murder after a Supreme Court jury found him guilty by majority verdict after a nearly seven-week trial.

His Court of Criminal Appeal stoush began on Wednesday, with Davey first convincing the trio of judges to remove shackles from his ankles.

Addressing the judges directly, Davey stood up and said in all the time he’d spent before the courts over the years, he’d never been violent and had “always faced justice calmly”.

“I feel like (I’m being treated like) some dangerous serial killer or mafia boss who can click his fingers and make things happen,” he said.

“I’m no dangerous criminal that needs to be chained up. We’re not back in the convict days.”

His lawyer Fabiano Cangelosi argued there were a number of discrepancies between Davey’s and Ms Evans’ accounts of how the fire ignited.

He said the evidence from the scene tended to support his client’s case.

“There is a reasonable possibility that the applicant is an innocent person who has been convicted,” he said.

Mr Cangelosi also argued the jury should not have been played hours of recorded telephone evidence, in which Davey screamed at Evans.

He said this resulted in a “tremendous unfair prejudice” to Davey and was of no assistance in determining “the mechanism of the fire”.

Lastly, Mr Cangelosi argued a letter Ms Evans wrote about the relationship, in which she seemed to “predict” her boyfriend would try to kill her, “had almost no probative value”.

However Linda Mason SC, acting for the Crown, said the central fact in issue at the trial – for the jury to determine – was Ms Evans’ claims Davey had covered her in fuel and lit it.

She also said the evidence represented to the jury about the pair’s relationship was vital, helping them understand that Davey would act in certain ways to “subdue” her, to assert his authority and re-establish control in their relationship.

Greg Richardson, Davey’s barrister during the trial, will be called on at a later stage to give evidence.

Chief Justice Blow and Justice Tamara Jago both disclosed that in the past, they had been friends with Mr Richardson.

However, they both said in more recent years, their relationship with the barrister was purely professional, and they didn’t see any issue with impartiality.

The appeal hearing continues Thursday.

Follow @ambervwilson