The three-part test from R v [name withheld] for reception of fresh evidence on a sentencing appeal was applied: the evidence must not have been obtainable with reasonable diligence, must probably have an important influence on the result, and must be apparently credible. A psychological report revealing the offender's own history of sexual abuse, which did not establish contrition and could not affect the decision not to suspend, does not satisfy the second criterion. Medical reports concerning hardship to family members that add little to submissions already considered by the sentencing judge similarly fail to qualify as fresh evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.