Caruso v The Queen

The applicant, Caruso, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. The application was heard by the High Court in Adelaide.

The primary legal issues before the High Court concerned the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal to receive fresh evidence after an appeal had been resolved, and the extent to which the High Court itself possessed inherent jurisdiction to entertain an application that included a component for the reception of fresh evidence. The applicant also sought an extension of time to lodge the application for special leave to appeal.

The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal lacked jurisdiction to receive fresh evidence post-resolution, citing High Court decisions in *Gamser v Nominal Defendant* and *Bailey v Marinoff*. The applicant contended that this lack of jurisdiction in the Court of Criminal Appeal necessitated an application to the High Court. However, the High Court expressed reservations about why an application for fresh evidence had not first been made to the Court of Criminal Appeal to ascertain its stance. The applicant also raised the question of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to entertain such applications, noting historical instances where the High Court had admitted fresh evidence.

The High Court indicated that, based on the materials before it, it would not be prepared to make any order concerning the tendering of fresh evidence. The Court noted that if the applicant were so advised and the evidence properly presented, further consideration might be given.