Expert evidence that sounds on an audio-taped police interview are 'consistent with' the applicant's version of events but equally consistent with innocent explanations is equivocal and falls far short of the cogency standard required for reception of new evidence on appeal. The normal sounds of an interview conducted across a table in a confined space (tapping, paper movement, writing) do not support an inference of police fabrication.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.