The appellant appealed convictions for assault, unlawful confinement, and breach of recognizance arising from allegations made by a complainant in a former intimate relationship.
Although the court rejected the argument that the trial verdict was unreasonable, it admitted as fresh evidence the complainant's later trial testimony giving a materially different account of the incident.
Applying the Palmer framework and recantation authorities, the court held that the later sworn evidence had substantial impeachment value on the decisive issue of credibility.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.
