Supreme Court reserves 'Black Widow' appeal decision

Helen Milner. Photo / Martin Hunter

The Supreme Court has today reserved its decision on "Black Widow" husband-killer Helen Elizabeth Milner's application to appeal against her conviction.

In 2013, Milner was found guilty of fatally poisoning her second husband Phil Nisbet and was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum non-parole term of 17 years.

A High Court found Milner poisoned Mr Nisbet in 2009, despite her claims Mr Nisbet committed suicide.

This morning, Milner's lawyer Rupert Glover said a Seattle-based pathologist and an American toxicologist contacted him late last year with concerns about evidence used to convict Milner.

A jury found Milner used the allergy drug Phenergan or Promethazine to kill Mr Nisbet. But Mr Glover said the two Americans and a British expert had raised doubts about the amounts of the drug necessary to kill Mr Nisbet and they wanted to review the evidence.

He said these scientists were so committed to the case "they were prepared to act for no fee".

Mr Glover said the amount of Promethazine found in Mr Nisbet's system "might not have been sufficient to cause death".

He said the scientists suggested having access to slides, hair samples and cardiac tissues, which he referred to as "raw materials, to put it crudely" to take another look at the cause of Mr Nisbet's death.

Milner earlier argued in the Court of Appeal the jury's verdict was unreasonable because the prosecution didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt it was possible for her to have given Phenergan to Mr Nisbet without him noticing its bitter taste.

Mr Glover today claimed the case had implications for the whole autopsy system in New Zealand.

Chief Justice Sian Elias said the appellant only had a "line of inquiry" or a hypothesis and she was not yet convinced Mr Glover had provided compelling reasons for the court to grant leave for appeal.

"I'm not sure that there's anything the Court can get a handle on," Justice Elias said.

Justice William Young said it was important to remember the "whole context" of the case, which included the Crown's assertion Milner had a motive for killing her husband.

That motive was established as financial gain - to take advantage of her husband's $250,000 life insurance policy.

Crown lawyer Mark Lillico said Mr Glover had already received Environmental Science and Research (ESR) notes in mid-January.

Mr Lillico said if it was found Mr Nisbet had a level of Promethazine in his body lower than a normal fatal dose, that would make him an "outlier" - an example of a low lethal dose.

"He becomes the new low tide mark if you like."

Members of Mr Nisbet's family including his sister Lee-Anne Cartier, were at the Supreme Court.

Outside court, Mr Nisbet's family and their supporters voiced disquiet at today's application, one saying it had taken "a toll" on the family and a member of another group making a variety of obscene gestures at TV cameras.

Another said the family were doing fine, but he greatly disapproved of the case being taken to the Supreme Court.

"I think we need a re-trial," Mr Glover said outside court. "And a jury needs to have an opportunity to assess, on the basis of this new scientific evidence, whether or not they believe she did in fact kill him or attempt to kill him with Promethazine - the two things may be slightly different."