The ACT Court of Appeal held that fresh evidence on a sentencing appeal will not be admitted unless the court is satisfied it would have produced a different result, applying CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172. The Court endorsed the R v Goodwin (1990) test for sentencing appeals: the additional material must be of such significance that the sentencing judge may have regarded it as having a real bearing on the decision, and a satisfactory explanation must be given for its absence at first instance. On the facts, the appellant failed to demonstrate that further psychiatric evidence, evidence of cooperation with police, or a bare assertion disputing the amount stolen met these thresholds, and the appeal was dismissed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.