The man who torched his former partner to death at a Stirling beauty salon is saying he was incapable of understanding the severity of his actions at the time.

Ahmed Yazdanparast (63), who was jailed for life for the attack on Ahdieh Khayatzadeh in October 2013, is claiming that his defence team at the time did not do enough to present evidence showing he was suffering from diminished responsibility. He has now lodged an appeal and wants his murder conviction quashed.

At the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, his new lawyer Keith Stewart QC told appeal judges Lady Dorrian, Lord Bracadale and Lord Drummond Young that: “There was a body of material which tended to suggest that the mental state of the appellant at the time of the index offence that his criminal responsibility for any action undertaken was diminished.” Yazdanparast claims he should not have been held fully criminally liable for the attack as his mental state did not allow him to appreciate or understand the severity of his actions and the jury, which sent him behind bars for a minimum of 19 years, could have returned a verdict of culpable homicide - a lesser charge.

The kebab shop owner’s ex-wife suffered burns to 95 per cent of her body after Yazdanparast doused her in petrol and set fire to the 46-year-old woman at Stiring’s Venus Hair and Beauty salon.

She was taken to Forth Valley Royal Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. Before she passed away, she told a paramedic that her ex carried out the attack because she had divorced him.

Prosecution lawyer Tim Niven Smith told the court that Yazdanparast’s previous legal team did nothing wrong.

He said: “I invite your lordships to refuse this appeal. There has been no miscarriage of justice in this case which is a very, very strong one for the Crown.

“I would go so far as to submit that the body of circumstantial evidence against the appellant was overwhelming.

“My learned friend is entirely lacking in ability to present, to demonstrate, to the court a report which shows any suggestion whatsoever that the medical criteria or the scientific criteria for diminished responsibility could have been met.” The appeal judges will issue their decision in a written judgement later this year.