Bird v Redman

The appellant, Bird, appealed against a decision to dismiss his application to review an apprehended violence order (APVO) made against him. The appellant argued that fresh evidence had come to light which justified the review of the APVO. The respondent, Redman, opposed the appeal. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the court could consider fresh evidence in the review of an APVO. The appellant argued that the court should consider the new evidence as it was in the interests of justice to do so, pursuant to section 18(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). The respondent contended that the court should not consider the new evidence because it was not relevant to the original decision to make the APVO.

The court held that the test for admitting fresh evidence in an appeal or review of an APVO is whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. The court found that the new evidence did not alter the original decision to make the APVO. The court also found that the new evidence was not such that it was not available to the appellant at the time of the original proceedings, and that the appellant had not shown any exceptional circumstances that would justify the admission of the new evidence. The court dismissed the appeal.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the costs of the appeal be paid by the appellant.