Neill-Fraser v Tasmania

The case of *Neill-Fraser v Tasmania* concerned an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Ms. Neill-Fraser, sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, arguing it was material and cogent, and that it had not been available at the time of her trial. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Wood J, Estcourt J, and Pearce J.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the fresh evidence, which had been in the possession of the Crown and not disclosed to the defence, could have been adduced at the trial. The court was required to determine if the defence had established that this evidence could not have been discovered and presented at trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence.

The court's reasoning focused on the test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal in criminal matters. It was held that for fresh evidence to be admitted, it must be shown that it could not, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained for use at the trial. The court found that the appellant had not discharged this burden of proof, concluding that the evidence in question could have been discovered and adduced at trial through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.