Mulligan v The Queen

The appeal by Dean Richard Mulligan against his conviction for the murder of Marice McGregor was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Mulligan had sought to introduce additional evidence in the form of affidavits from himself and a psychiatrist, aiming to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. Mulligan's affidavit claimed he was intimidated into not fully disclosing his relationship with McGregor and that another man, Phil Morrison, was the actual murderer. The psychiatrist's affidavit explained Mulligan's psychological vulnerability and poor coping skills, which might have inhibited his testimony at trial.

The primary legal issues were whether the new evidence was sufficiently fresh and credible and whether its admission could reasonably have led to a different verdict. The court noted that the evidence Mulligan sought to introduce was not fresh, as it was known to him prior to trial, and there was no credible explanation for its omission. The court also found that the additional evidence did not significantly differ from what was already presented at trial and could not have reasonably altered the jury's decision, given the overwhelming evidence against Mulligan.

The court concluded that the additional evidence did not meet the criteria for admission and there was no reasonable possibility that it would have led to a different verdict. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.