Betts v The Queen

Betts appealed to the High Court of Australia against the severity of sentences imposed upon him. The appeal concerned the admission of additional material by the appellant, which contained evidence inconsistent with his case at the original sentencing hearing. This material was admitted on the "usual basis" that it could be considered by the appellate court if it decided to re-sentence the appellant.

The High Court was required to determine whether a miscarriage of justice had been occasioned when the appellate court, having found error and engaged in re-sentencing the appellant, refused to take into account the additional material. This involved considering the nature of "fresh evidence" and the scope of an appellate court's powers in re-sentencing, including its discretion and supplemental powers.

The Court reasoned that the "usual basis" for admitting additional material on appeal did not confer an unfettered right to have that material considered in all circumstances. The appellate court retained a discretion to determine whether such material should be taken into account, particularly where it contradicted the appellant's own evidence at the original sentencing. The High Court held that the appellate court had not erred in its approach, as the admission of the material on the "usual basis" was conditional and did not mandate its consideration in the re-sentencing exercise, especially given its contradictory nature.

The appeal was dismissed.