Helps v The Queen (No 3)

This matter concerned an application for permission to appeal by the applicant, Helps, against his conviction. The dispute centred on the admissibility of new evidence, referred to as the "Suzuki evidence," which suggested it was impossible for the alleged sexual assault in Count 8 to have occurred as described by the prosecution. The application was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Peek, Stanley, and Doyle JJ.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the "Suzuki evidence" qualified as "fresh evidence" under section 159(6)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). This section requires that fresh evidence could not, even with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been adduced at the trial. The Court also considered the compelling nature of this evidence under section 159(6)(b) of the CPA.

By majority, Stanley and Doyle JJ held that the Suzuki evidence did not satisfy the test of fresh evidence. Their Honours reasoned that the applicant's actions and the actions of his legal representatives indicated that the evidence, specifically the disposal notice for the Suzuki, could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to the trial. They noted that the applicant was aware of the relevance of the evidence and had obtained a copy of the disposal notice with ease. Peek J, in dissent, found the Suzuki evidence to be compelling and interpreted section 159(6)(a)(ii) to require a focus on the applicant's particular circumstances, allowing for greater latitude due to the gross incompetence of his legal representation.

Ultimately, by majority, the Court refused permission to appeal, concluding that the Suzuki evidence could have been adduced at the trial with reasonable diligence and therefore did not meet the criteria for fresh evidence under the CPA.