Statements made by a complainant to a psychologist in support of a compensation application, which are inconsistent with the complainant's trial evidence on matters bearing on her credibility, may constitute fresh evidence warranting a retrial where the complainant's credit was the central issue at trial. The fact that fresh evidence goes only to credit does not diminish its importance where credibility is the central issue.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.