Moseley v The Queen

The appeal concerned a conviction for aggravated armed robbery. The appellant, Moseley, was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and alleged admissions, as both robbers were masked during the commission of the offence. The prosecution's case relied on the appellant's rental of a red Commodore sedan, which was identified as the getaway car, and the fact that this car was later found near the home of a co-accused, Tippett. The appellant maintained his innocence, claiming he was at a friend's house at the time of the robbery. The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, constituted by Mildren ACJ, Southwood and Kelly JJ.

The central issue on appeal was whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the absence of fresh evidence at the trial. Specifically, the court had to determine if the fresh evidence was of sufficient cogency to establish the appellant's innocence or, alternatively, if it was of a quality that raised a significant possibility that a jury, properly instructed, could have acquitted the appellant. The court was required to consider what constitutes "fresh evidence" in the context of an appeal against conviction.

The court acknowledged that the appeal was based on the contention that new evidence, not available at the trial, demonstrated a miscarriage of justice. The evidence presented at trial established that two masked men committed an aggravated armed robbery at a KFC. The prosecution's case against the appellant rested on circumstantial evidence, including his rental of a red Commodore sedan, which was identified as the getaway vehicle, and the subsequent discovery of that car near the home of a co-accused. The appellant had testified that he was elsewhere at the time of the robbery. The court's task was to assess whether the newly presented evidence met the threshold for admission on appeal and, if so, whether it would have likely altered the outcome of the trial.