Austic v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, Austic, was convicted of wilful murder in 2009 following a trial in the Supreme Court of Western Australia before a judge and jury. Austic's appeal against his conviction was dismissed in 2010 by the Court of Appeal. Austic subsequently applied for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, and the Attorney General referred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 140 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA). Austic sought leave to adduce additional evidence and for the Court of Appeal to set aside his conviction and order a new trial. The State sought leave to adduce additional evidence in response to Austic's application.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the additional evidence, if admitted, rendered Austic's conviction unreasonable or incapable of being supported having regard to the whole of the evidence before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal also had to determine whether the whole of the evidence before it established that a miscarriage of justice had occurred at the trial, and whether the Court of Appeal should set aside Austic's conviction and enter a judgment of acquittal or set aside Austic's conviction and order a new trial.

The Court of Appeal held that the additional evidence was relevant to the issue of Austic's guilt and the reliability of the evidence upon which he was convicted. The Court of Appeal found that the additional evidence established that there was a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice in Austic's trial. The Court of Appeal held that Austic's conviction was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence before it. The Court of Appeal allowed Austic's appeal, set aside his conviction for wilful murder and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal also held that the State's applications in the appeal for leave to adduce additional evidence should be granted, as the State was entitled to be heard on the issue of the admissibility and relevance of Austic's additional evidence. The Court of Appeal further held that Austic's applications in the appeal for leave to adduce additional evidence should also be granted, as the additional evidence was relevant to the issue of Austic's guilt and the reliability of the evidence upon which he was convicted. The Court of Appeal further held that leave to appeal should be granted, if leave be necessary, as the additional evidence was relevant to the issue of Austic's guilt and the reliability of the evidence upon which he was convicted.