The case illustrates that evidence actually known to an appellant before trial is 'new' rather than 'fresh' evidence and will not support an application to adduce additional evidence on appeal, even where it contradicts a complainant's sworn testimony, unless it is also shown to be cogent and relevant. An aggregate sentence equivalent to 12 years 6 months under the pre-transitional regime for sexual offences against three child complainants over approximately three years may warrant appellate review under the totality principle. Reference to a single comparable case is insufficient to demonstrate a sentencing range for the purpose of a manifest excessiveness ground.
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.