Cuijpers v Sander [No 2]

[2009] WASCA 84

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › Application to review decision of single judge of appeal
4. › Whether grounds of appeal had reasonable prospect of success
5. › Whether single judge erred in striking out grounds
6. › Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(f)
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › Fresh and new evidence on appeal
4. › Distinction between fresh evidence and new evidence
5. › Test for admission of new evidence
6. › Whether new evidence demonstrates innocence or raises doubt about guilt
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), ss 39, 40
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › Extension of time to appeal
4. › Lengthy delay
5. › Whether exceptional circumstances shown
6. › Whether miscarriage of justice if extension not granted
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Credibility findings of trial judge
4. › Natural limitations of appellate court proceeding on the record
5. › Whether credibility findings flawed by reference to incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony

Quick Take

The case confirms that on an application to review a single judge's decision striking out grounds of appeal, the applicant must demonstrate error by the single judge, and is confined to the grounds before the single judge. New evidence that existed at trial and could have been discovered with reasonable diligence must demonstrate innocence or raise such doubt that the conviction should not stand. A non-material error by the single judge will not vitiate the ultimate decision.