The distinction drawn in White v R between the 'interests of justice' test for pre-conviction applications to withdraw guilty pleas and the 'miscarriage of justice' test for post-conviction appeals survives challenge, though the Court identified force in criticisms of White's reasoning. Where a primary judge applies the wrong test but the factual findings would have produced the same result under either test, no substantial miscarriage of justice occurs and the proviso applies. The question of whether White is correct remains open for future consideration by a differently constituted bench.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.