The Court of Appeal refused leave to bring a second appeal against conviction under s 326A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), holding that road safety camera images were fresh but not compelling evidence, and that solicitor file documents were not fresh because they could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial. The Court left open whether evidence that could have been adduced during a first appeal (but not at trial) satisfies the freshness requirement for a second appeal under s 326C(3)(a), finding it unnecessary to resolve that question. The applicant's hypothesis that a prosecution witness murdered the deceased and framed the applicant was characterised as fanciful on the whole of the evidence, which included agreed DNA, fingerprint, and CCTV identification evidence constituting a strong Crown case.
The full text is available to signed-in members.