An appellant contending a verdict is unreasonable must identify the specific evidential foundation for that contention and cannot merely assert as a conclusion that the evidence was vague or contained discrepancies. The materiality test from Brawn v The King and MDP v The King requires that errors or irregularities in the trial process must have had the realistic capacity to affect the jury's reasoning to a guilty verdict, but this threshold is not onerous. Where fresh evidence is sought to be adduced on appeal to support a miscarriage of justice ground based on defence counsel's conduct, the appellant must establish that the witness would in fact have given the evidence now claimed at the relevant time.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.