The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable and sought to adduce fresh evidence.
The proposed evidence consisted of post-conviction recorded telephone conversations in which the complainant explicitly and implicitly admitted that her trial testimony was false.
The court held that, although inconsistencies in the Crown's case did not render the verdict unreasonable, the fresh evidence satisfied the Palmer requirement that it could reasonably affect the result.
The fresh evidence was admitted, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
