R v Ashton

In the case of R v Ashton, the appellant, a prisoner, sought an appeal against his sentence on the basis of fresh evidence regarding his mental state at the time of the sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining whether the fresh evidence could be admitted and whether it was sufficient to warrant a re-evaluation of the sentence. The Crown objected to the introduction of the new evidence, primarily because it would preclude the opportunity to cross-examine the expert witnesses, but the court allowed its reception, noting that the evidence was untested by the Crown and some of its opinions might be given little weight.

The fresh evidence, primarily comprising psychiatric reports, suggested that the applicant had developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his incarceration in 1994 and interactions with the police. The applicant had attended a psychologist in January 2000 and reported feelings of fear and hopelessness regarding any further incarceration. The psychologist concluded that any further incarceration would likely have dire consequences for the applicant's mental health and could trigger a psychotic breakdown. The court considered this evidence, along with the applicant's history of mental health issues and the significant delay in hearing the appeal, in deciding whether to intervene.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the fresh evidence provided a substantial basis for the applicant's appeal. The court accepted that the evidence suggested the applicant's mental state at the time of sentencing had not been fully appreciated and that any further incarceration could severely impact his mental health. Despite the Crown's arguments that the matter was more appropriately left to the Parole Board or the Commissioner for Corrective Services, the court concluded that the fresh evidence warranted a re-evaluation of the sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered the applicant be released on bail pending a new sentencing hearing. The court determined that the evidence demonstrated the applicant's mental state at the time of the original sentence was not properly considered and that any further incarceration would likely trigger a psychotic breakdown.