Rodi v Western Australia

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal by Rodi against his conviction for possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply. The appeal concerned the admission of fresh evidence, specifically expert testimony from an earlier proceeding that was inconsistent with evidence given at Rodi's trial. This earlier, inconsistent evidence had not been disclosed to Rodi at the time of his trial.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred, warranting the quashing of Rodi's conviction. This required the Court to consider whether the newly admitted evidence, which cast doubt on the credibility of the expert witness who testified against Rodi at trial, was of such a nature that it created a significant possibility of acquittal.

The High Court determined that the expert witness's earlier inconsistent evidence was both "credible and cogent" and that its non-disclosure at trial had deprived Rodi of a fair opportunity to challenge the prosecution's case. Applying the principles governing the admission of fresh evidence on appeal, the Court found that there was a significant possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict had this evidence been available. Consequently, the Court concluded that a miscarriage of justice had indeed occurred.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed Rodi's conviction, and ordered a new trial.