Mokbel v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

The case of Mokbel v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) involved a second appeal by the respondent, a high-profile criminal defendant, against his conviction for various criminal charges, including conspiracy to commit murder and drug-related offences. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal had erred in law in refusing to admit fresh and compelling evidence that would likely have resulted in an acquittal. The Crown had conceded that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and submitted that the appeal should be allowed based on the fresh evidence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge and subsequently the Court of Appeal had erred in their decisions to exclude the fresh evidence, which was not available at the time of the first trial. The respondent argued that the exclusion of the evidence was a miscarriage of justice, as it contained critical information that could have exonerated him. The Crown conceded that the evidence was indeed fresh and compelling and that its exclusion had led to an unfair trial. The High Court had to determine if the lower courts' decisions to exclude the evidence were legally sound and whether the substantial miscarriage of justice conceded by the Crown warranted allowing the appeal.

The High Court found that the lower courts had indeed erred in excluding the fresh evidence, which was both compelling and unavailable at the time of the original trial. The Court held that the exclusion of such evidence amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice, as it was material to the respondent's defence and could have led to an acquittal. The Crown's concession of a substantial miscarriage of justice and their submission that the appeal should be allowed on the basis of the fresh evidence were significant factors in the Court's decision. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and set aside the sentence. This decision was made under section 326A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, which provides for the allowance of appeals on the basis of fresh and compelling evidence that was not available at the time of the original trial.