Timms v The Queen

In the High Court of Australia, Russell Ormonde Timms sought special leave to appeal against a decision. The core of the dispute concerned the applicant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence to support defences that were not specifically raised at his trial, nor fully pursued on appeal.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence presented by the applicant could properly be considered "fresh evidence" for the purposes of a new trial. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the defences, particularly those based on section 18 of the *Stock Diseases (Regulations) Act 1968* (WA) and section 22 of the Code, were sufficiently raised or applicable to the facts of the case to warrant granting special leave.

The majority of the Court concluded that the evidence was not clearly fresh, and crucially, the defences were not properly raised at trial. The defence under section 18 of the *Stock Diseases (Regulations) Act* was only raised by the Court of Criminal Appeal and then disclaimed by the applicant. The defence under section 22 of the Code was not raised at all, and its applicability to the facts was considered a difficult question best addressed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in the first instance. Consequently, the Court found that the interests of the administration of justice did not support granting special leave. The application for special leave to appeal was refused.