Application by Brian Steer under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

Brian Steer, an inmate at a correctional facility, applied for a review of his conviction under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. The application arose from Steer's attempt to escape from prison, during which he hid in the roof cavity of the gaol for over five hours. His initial appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and his application for special leave to appeal was also refused. The application for review focuses on specific aspects of the evidence presented during the trial, including concerns about hearsay, speculation, conjecture, and the admissibility of opinion evidence. These issues were not raised during the earlier appeal, prompting the need to consider them anew.

The court had to determine whether the application for review was appropriate given that the issues were not previously raised in the appeal hearing. The central question was whether these matters, if accepted as true, would cast doubt on Steer's guilt, thereby justifying a review of his conviction. The court examined the nature of the evidence and whether it could be considered speculative or conjectural, and if the opinion evidence was admissible under the rules of evidence. It was also necessary to assess if the new evidence could reasonably lead to a different outcome regarding Steer's guilt.

In its reasoning, the court found that the evidence in question, while potentially casting some doubt on certain aspects of the original conviction, did not sufficiently undermine the overall reliability of the trial's outcome. The court held that the issues raised, such as the hearsay nature of some evidence, were speculative and did not sufficiently challenge the core findings of guilt. Furthermore, the opinion evidence was deemed inadmissible under the relevant rules, and the court concluded that there was no appearance of doubt as to Steer's guilt. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for review by Brian Steer. The court determined that despite the issues raised, they did not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the conviction. The application was therefore denied, and the conviction remained intact.