Application by Roger Cheney pursuant to s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (No 2)

The case involved Roger Cheney, who applied for a review of his conviction for aggravated sexual assault under section 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Cheney was caught in the act of committing the offence, with his trousers down, and was subsequently convicted. His application for review was based on alleged fresh evidence that he claimed undermined the evidence of the police officer who witnessed the assault.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the fresh evidence presented by Cheney was of such a nature that it undermined the evidence of the police officer to the extent that it gave rise to a sense of unease or disquiet about the safety of the conviction. The court also had to consider whether the fresh evidence was ambiguous and whether this ambiguity was sufficient to warrant a review of the conviction. Additionally, the court examined previous grounds of appeal that had been previously dealt with and rejected on appeal in 1998.

The court found that the fresh evidence presented by Cheney was ambiguous and did not clearly undermine the evidence of the police officer. It was noted that the complainant did not give evidence at the trial, and the grounds for review had already been considered and rejected on a previous appeal. The court held that there was no sense of unease or disquiet in allowing the conviction to stand. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of South Australia ordered that the application for review be dismissed, with no orders for costs.