The appellant appealed her conviction for speeding (159 km/h in a 100 km/h zone) on the grounds that her paralegal agent entered a guilty plea without proper instructions and that her plea was uninformed.
The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence consisting of her affidavit and supporting documents.
The court dismissed the appeal on two grounds: first, the appellant's agent on appeal failed to follow the required protocol for allegations of incompetent assistance by not providing notice to trial counsel or conducting independent investigation; second, the proposed fresh evidence failed to meet the Palmer test for admissibility and actually supported the conclusion that the plea was voluntary and informed.
