Brother-in-law killer fails in appeal bid

A man convicted of murdering his brother-in-law in Perth and evading police for more than a decade has failed in his bid to have his sentence reduced.

Anthony Carl Prestidge was sentenced in March to a minimum jail term of 17 years after being found guilty in the West Australian Supreme Court of murdering Andy Arthur Ball on September 10, 2002.

The body of Mr Ball, who died from a severe head injury, was found two days later under some bed sheets on the floor of his Ellenbrook kitchen.

The 24-year-old victim had been married for four years to Prestidge's sister, Angela, but the relationship was both mentally and physically abusive, and Ms Ball left her husband days before he was murdered.

Defence lawyer Helen Prince claimed during the trial that her client, who had been visiting the couple from the UK and knew about the abuse, was defending himself after Mr Ball attacked him with a wrench - believing Prestidge was responsible for his wife leaving.

Ms Prince said her client had been accused by Mr Ball of having an incestuous affair with his sister, but had previously acted more appropriately by leaving the house.

Both men had been drinking alcohol and the incident happened "in the heat of the moment", she said.

While Justice Lindy Jenkins said she believed the attack wasn't premeditated, the law did not condone acts of revenge.

After the attack, Prestidge took the victim's car, locked his house and fled to Bali.

He was in 2011 extradited to Perth from Thailand, where he had been living illegally, after being pulled over for driving without a licence.

He had argued he fled because he was in shock by what had happened and could not face his brother-in-law's family.

But Justice Jenkins said she didn't accept that argument and believe Prestidge had fled to save his own skin.

And while he had said he was sorry in a letter to the court, Justice Jenkins said Prestidge was not remorseful.

On Friday, the full bench of Western Australia's Court of Appeal dismissed Prestidge's appeal, which was in part argued on the grounds that Justice Jenkins had erred in describing his assault on the victim as "ferocious".

"The appellant savagely assaulted the victim in that he used a heavy weapon and severe force to fracture the right side of the victim's skull into multiple pieces, to substantially bruise the victim's brain and to lacerate or tear his brain," Justice Michael John Buss said.

Another ground was that she had wrongly characterised Prestidge's actions after the killing as "hiding" the body.

"The appellant is nitpicking about semantics," Justice Buss said.

"She explained, correctly, that by hiding the victim's body underneath the bedding, leaving the house locked and taking the victim's car, the appellant made it less likely that the victim would be missed in the short term."