Rodi v Western AustraliaCitation:[2018] HCA 44Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:10 Oct 2018Case Number:P24/2018Read more
The court held that although the expert's earlier inconsistent evidence was admitted as fresh evidence, it did not create a significant possibility of acquittal and thus no miscarriage of justice occurred.
- Parties
- Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 October 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Prohibited Drugs, Appeal Against Conviction, Fresh Evidence, Miscarriage of Justice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Parties
Appellant
Appellant
Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the non-disclosure of earlier inconsistent expert evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice
- 2 Whether the admission of fresh evidence warranted setting aside the conviction
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although the expert's earlier inconsistent evidence was admitted as fresh evidence, it did not create a significant possibility of acquittal and thus no miscarriage of justice occurred.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment