Cornwell v R

The applicant, Cornwell, sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the grounds that he suffered from an undiagnosed medical condition, Huntington’s Disease, at the time of sentencing. The matter was heard in the court of appeal where the central issue was whether Cornwell should be re-sentenced in light of the fresh medical evidence he wished to present. The court had to determine if the medical condition and its impact on his ability to serve the sentence constituted an exception to the general rule against admitting fresh evidence post-sentencing.

The legal issues revolved around whether the fresh medical evidence about Cornwell's condition should be considered and if it justified a re-sentencing. The court considered the principles that allow for fresh evidence to be admitted in exceptional circumstances and examined the rationale behind Cornwell's decision not to present this evidence at the time of sentencing. The applicant's psychological state at the time, which explained his failure to present the medical evidence earlier, was a significant factor in the court's deliberations.

The court concluded that the medical evidence was an exception to the general rule and granted Cornwell leave to present it. The psychological explanation provided by the applicant was deemed sufficient to justify not presenting the evidence previously. Consequently, the court admitted the fresh medical evidence and re-sentenced Cornwell, taking into account the impact of his medical condition on his ability to serve the sentence.