R v. Park

In the matter of R v Park, the appellant was convicted by a jury on two counts of rape. The central issue at trial was the consent of the complainant to the acts of sexual intercourse. On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence of an alleged confession by the complainant to a third party, claiming the allegations of rape were false. This evidence was not available at the time of the trial. The appeal raised questions about the admissibility of fresh evidence in criminal appeals, specifically whether the proposed evidence was truly new, material, and cogent enough to potentially alter the outcome of the trial.

The court examined whether the proposed confession constituted fresh evidence, considering its unavailability at the time of the trial. It also assessed the materiality and cogency of the evidence. The appellant argued that the confession, if believed, would have significantly undermined the credibility of the complainant's testimony, potentially leading to an acquittal. The court held that for evidence to be considered fresh, it must be newly discovered and could not have been obtained with due diligence at the time of the trial. Furthermore, the court determined that for the evidence to be material, it must have a bearing on the substantial justice of the case. The cogency of the evidence was also scrutinised to determine whether it was reliable and believable enough to affect the jury's decision.

Upon evaluating the evidence, the court concluded that the proposed confession did not meet the criteria for fresh evidence as it could have been discovered with due diligence. Additionally, even if considered fresh, the evidence did not possess the necessary materiality and cogency to reasonably affect the jury's verdict. The court found that the confession was not sufficiently reliable or convincing to overturn the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld.