An applicant who seeks to tender fresh evidence on a sentence appeal that contradicts expert evidence adduced at sentence, where no incompetence of legal representatives is shown and the significance of the evidence was known to the applicant at sentencing, will not establish a miscarriage of justice warranting reception of that evidence. The qualified nature of the fresh evidence and its inconsistency with the established factual basis for sentencing (motivation by greed over 3½ years) further militate against reception.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.