Mannah v The State of Western Australia

The applicants in the case of Mannah v The State of Western Australia sought to appeal their convictions based on fresh evidence presented by a new witness who claimed responsibility for the offence in question. The applicants, who had been convicted of certain criminal charges, argued that the new evidence was fresh, cogent, plausible, relevant and reasonably capable of affecting the outcome of the appeal. They sought to introduce this new evidence and to extend the time for doing so. The State of Western Australia opposed the applications, contending that the evidence was not fresh, was not cogent, and could not reasonably affect the outcome of the appeal.

The court considered the nature and content of the new evidence, as well as the circumstances surrounding its emergence, in determining whether it was fresh. The court also considered the cogency, plausibility, relevance and potential impact of the new evidence on the outcome of the appeal. The court found that the new evidence was fresh, as it had emerged after the conclusion of the original trial and was not known to the applicants at the time. The court also found that the new evidence was cogent, plausible, relevant and reasonably capable of affecting the outcome of the appeal.

Based on the court's findings, the applicants' applications to adduce fresh evidence were granted, while their applications to extend time were refused. The court found that the new evidence could not be used to appeal the applicants' convictions, as the evidence did not meet the criteria for fresh evidence and was not reasonably capable of affecting the outcome of the appeal. Consequently, the applicants' appeals were dismissed.

The orders of the court were that the applicants' applications to adduce fresh evidence were granted, while their applications to extend time were refused. The applicants' appeals were dismissed, and no further action could be taken on the matter.