A man convicted of a 2012 murder is expected to have his appeal heard by the Privy Council in London this summer.

Wolda Gardner was jailed for the premeditated murder of Malcolm Augustus and using a firearm to commit an indictable act. He launched an appeal against his conviction on the basis that the jury selection process had breached his right to a fair trial.

While the Court of Appeal struck down his case in 2022, it found that there were some “genuinely disputable issues” in the judgment so it would be wrong to refuse leave to appeal.

According to the website of the Privy Council, the case is set to be heard on July 23.

Gardner was sentenced in July 2015 to 20 years behind bars for the murder of Mr Augustus, who was shot dead near Wellington Back Road in St George's on Christmas Eve 2012.

Gardner said he was in the area when the shooting took place and that he had heard a scuffle and gunshots but was not involved in the fatal attack.

However, he was found guilty by a verdict of 11-1.

He appealed the case unsuccessfully in 2017, and in 2019 the Privy Council declined to hear the matter, saying there was “no risk” that a serious miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Gardner launched another appeal effort on the basis that his conviction was unconstitutional because the jury selection process had breached his right to a fair trial.

While the courts had previously ruled that exceptional circumstances were required for such an appeal to be successful in the Court of Appeal, Gardner argued that the language of Section 15 of the Constitution would allow a retroactive application to the Supreme Court.

While Gardner applied to the Supreme Court under Section 15, Chief Justice Narinder Hargun found that any appeal should go to the upper court — and that the same exceptional circumstances test would apply in both courts.

Gardner’s case was heard by the Court of Appeal in 2022, which denied his appeal but subsequently gave him leave to bring the matter to the Privy Council.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers