The Court of Appeal held that an applicant's rehabilitation and community reintegration during a period of bail granted pending appeal (which was subsequently abandoned) does not constitute fresh evidence capable of reopening the sentencing discretion under the Nguyen principles, because such evidence does not demonstrate the true significance of facts existing at the time of sentence. The Court further held that the revelation that Lawyer X was an undisclosed police human source — where Lawyer X did not act for the applicant at any relevant time — did not, however analysed, provide a basis for interfering with sentences that were appropriate when imposed. The return to custody following abandonment of an appeal was characterised as the inherent risk of bail pending appeal, not a basis for resentencing.
The full text is available to signed-in members.