The appellant appealed convictions for mischief and breach of probation entered after guilty pleas, arguing that he had been not criminally responsible at the time of the offences due to mental illness.
He sought to introduce fresh psychiatric evidence suggesting a reasonable probability that he might have met the criteria for a defence under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.
Applying the Palmer test for fresh evidence, the court held the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence and failed to show the proposed evidence could reasonably have affected the result.
The psychiatrist’s letter did not connect the appellant’s mental condition to the specific conduct underlying the offences and did not undermine the record demonstrating awareness of wrongdoing.
The application to introduce fresh evidence and the conviction appeal were dismissed.
