R v Pollock [2005] NSWCCA 316
None of the fresh evidence—concerning credibility or purported misconduct of police witnesses—was found to meet the established tests for fresh evidence on appeal; either the material was inadmissible, not sufficiently probative, or not relevant enough to the police testimony critical to conviction. Therefore, there is no significant possibility that the jury acting reasonably would have acquitted the appellant, and no miscarriage of justice is established.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 September 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Review of Conviction (fresh Evidence Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['murder' 'fresh Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'criminal Procedure']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Review of Conviction (fresh Evidence Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether fresh evidence concerning police witnesses' credibility justifies quashing the conviction for murder" 'Whether the alleged confessional material was admissible and voluntary' 'Whether failures or misconduct by police in other cases cast sufficient doubt on the police evidence in this trial']
Ratio Decidendi
None of the fresh evidence—concerning credibility or purported misconduct of police witnesses—was found to meet the established tests for fresh evidence on appeal; either the material was inadmissible, not sufficiently probative, or not relevant enough to the police testimony critical to conviction. Therefore, there is no significant possibility that the jury acting reasonably would have acquitted the appellant, and no miscarriage of justice is established.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed']
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