A brother and sister who battered a man to death in a stairwell at a high-rise block of flats have lost appeals against their convictions.

William Robertson, 42, was found guilty of murdering Joseph Kidd at in the Cardonald area of Glasgow and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 12 years in jail.

His 43-year-old sister was convicted of the lesser charge of culpable homicide and jailed for 10 years for her role in the death of the Mr Kidd.

The 44-year-old died in the city's Southern General hospital a day after the attack in September 2010.The victim was found lying at a stairwell below the 14th floor of a block at Tarfside Oval where the Robertsons lived in separate flats.

Judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh heard on Friday that Mr Kidd had been punched, stamped on or kicked and struck with a piece of crockery. He had a fractured skull and internal bruising to the head.

A witness at their trial at the High Court in Glasgow said Margaret Robertson claimed to him a guy "tried it on me" and she had gone and got her brother who attacked him. Contact blood staining was also found on her trainers, although she told another witness that she had to clean them because of the blood caused when she had been kicking into him.

The trial judge, Lord Turnbull, said she was involved in "a vicious attack on a man who was then abandoned to die in a stairwell". Background reports showed an unstable and chaotic lifestyle characterised by severe alcohol abuse.

Lord Carloway, who heard the appeal, said: "It is important to recognise that, for whatever reason, it was the appellant who instigated the attack upon the deceased and to some degree took part in that attack and its aftermath."

In her appeal, Robertson claimed that the trial judge had erred in rejecting a no case to answer submission made on her behalf and challenged directions he had given to the jury. But the appeal judges refused her grounds of challenge.

Her brother also challenged his conviction claiming that certain questioning and evidence at the trial should have been ruled inadmissible, but the judges held that it could not be said a miscarriage of justice had taken place and refused his appeal.