Stavrianakos v WA

[2011] WASCA 130

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Leave to appeal against conviction
4. › Fresh or new evidence
5. › Whether evidence gives rise to miscarriage of justice
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), ss 27(2), 39(1), 39(3), 40(1)(e)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Admission of evidence on appeal
4. › Discretion to admit evidence not before lower court
5. › Whether ends of justice require admission
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), ss 39(1), 39(3), 40(1)(e)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Fresh evidence distinguished from new evidence
4. › Onus on appellant to establish evidence is fresh
5. › Whether reasonable diligence exercised in discovering evidence

Quick Take

Where an appellant seeks to adduce evidence from a witness who was known and available at trial, the appellant must provide a full and frank explanation (usually by affidavits from both the appellant and trial counsel) as to why the witness was not called. An affidavit from the proposed witness alone, without such explanation, is incapable of establishing that the evidence is 'fresh'. New evidence that is vague as to when, how, and in what circumstances the relevant conduct occurred will not meet the higher threshold required to disturb a regularly obtained conviction.