Weaven v The Queen

[2018] VSCA 127

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction
4. › Application for extension of time
5. › Six year delay
6. › Whether merits of proposed appeal justify extension
7. › Whether fresh or new evidence available
8. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 275(1), 313(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction
4. › Fresh or new evidence
5. › Confession obtained through 'scenario' technique
6. › Whether psychologist's opinion constitutes fresh evidence
7. › Whether change in foreign jurisprudence constitutes fresh evidence
8. › Whether evidence available at trial with reasonable diligence
9. › Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 84, 85, 90, 135, 137
1. Evidence
2. › Admissions
3. › Confession to undercover police officer
4. › Scenario or 'Mr Big' technique
5. › Whether Canadian presumption of inadmissibility applies in Australia
6. › Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396
7. › Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 84, 85, 90

Quick Take

The Canadian Supreme Court's presumption of inadmissibility for 'Mr Big' scenario confessions established in R v Hart [2014] 2 SCR 544 does not represent Australian law. Australian courts remain bound by Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396 and the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) when assessing the admissibility of scenario confessions. A change in foreign jurisprudence, combined with a psychologist's report based on information available at trial, does not constitute 'fresh evidence' for the purposes of a criminal appeal.

Case Details

Citation[2018] VSCA 127

CourtVSCA

JurisdictionVictoria

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on15

2017Chen v The QueenVSCA 335
2017Madafferi v The QueenVSCA 302
2017Rapovski v The QueenVSCA 175
2017Bowden (a pseudonym) v The QueenVSCA 46
and 11 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in