Toyah Cordingley's killer appeals murder conviction

The man found to have brutally murdered Cairns woman Toyah Cordingley has had his appeal against his conviction and sentence heard in court.

Toyah Cordingley was stabbed and had her throat cut while on a walk with her dog on Wangetti Beach, north of Cairns, on October 21, 2018 when she was 24-years-old.

In December last year, a jury found Innisfail nurse Rajwinder Singh guilty of her murder after a four-week trial in Cairns.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years, five years longer than the statutory minimum.

Counsel for Singh, Saul Holt KC, told the Brisbane Supreme Court their appeal was based on several issues with the trial, including the decision by the presiding judge, Justice Lincoln Crowley, to discharge one of the jury members part-way through.

The court heard that 12 days into the trial, Justice Crowley received a note from a juror saying that one of their colleagues, juror 5, was "conducting his own investigation" and was biased against police.

Based on that note, Mr Holt said Justice Crowley made the decision to dismiss juror 5 but retain the rest of the jury, without conducting further investigation into what triggered the note.

Mr Holt argued an investigation may have uncovered that evidence which had not been shown to the jurors may have entered the jury room, requiring all of them to be dismissed.

He said the lack of investigation also meant the allegations against juror 5 were not tested.

"What was in that note could not be accepted without further inquiry. Something needed to be done," Mr Holt said.

"It risks the perception that one juror, by writing a note, can get rid of another juror who may disagree with them."

He described the lack of investigation as a "fundamental error, a miscarriage".

Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions, Todd Fuller KC, said the contents of the note were read to the rest of the jury and no complaints or issues were raised.

He said the risk of conducting an inquiry was to potentially compromise the independence of the jury, and the dismissal of additional jurors.

Mr Fuller argued there was "no irregularity on the part of the judge acting on the note without further inquiry".

Singh's defence team also questioned the separation of jurors during an excursion to Wangetti Beach as part of the trial.

Mr Holt told the court jurors formed small groups and broke off from one another during that trip, which he argued compromised their ability to receive the same information as each other.

It was his submission this might have impacted their understanding of the evidence given in court.

In response, Mr Fuller said while there was some physical separation between jurors during the visit to the site, "they were always in the control of the court".

The length of the sentence given to Singh was also appealed, with his defence team describing it as "manifestly excessive".

Singh was handed a five-year extension to his non-parole period based on the brutality of the crime, the treatment of the body afterwards, and the public setting in which it occurred.

The judge also noted Singh's lack of remorse, and his attempts to blame others.

Mr Holt told the court that taking into account the way in which the defence argued its case, including pointing to other potential suspects, should not have factored into sentencing.

The defence also argued the nature of the crime was not exceptional, and there was an "over-emphasis on community protection" in handing out an extended sentence.

The three justices on the appeals court will now consider their verdict, which could take some weeks.