The Court of Appeal refused leave to bring a second appeal against conviction, holding that the applicant's proposed new evidence was neither fresh nor compelling within the meaning of s 326C of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. Most of the evidence (affidavits from family members, property records, school enrolment records) could have been adduced at trial with reasonable diligence and was therefore not 'fresh'. A post-trial psychological report, while fresh, was not 'compelling' because it was a counsellor's record rather than a direct statement by the complainant, the age-range discrepancy it revealed was minor, and it would not have eliminated or substantially weakened the prosecution case. The Court confirmed it has no discretion to grant leave for a second appeal absent fresh and compelling evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.