The Court of Appeal quashed the applicant's convictions for sexual offences against his daughters and ordered a new trial after a key prosecution witness (the applicant's youngest daughter) admitted post-trial to police that she had committed perjury at trial under threats from the two complainants. The Court held that the fresh evidence satisfied the R v AHK test: it could not reasonably have been tendered at trial, was apparently plausible, and was sufficiently relevant and cogent that a jury acting reasonably might have acquitted. The Court emphasised that an appeal will not always be allowed merely because a witness recants or is shown to have given perjured evidence; the fresh evidence must go to the heart of the case and bear on the credibility of the complainants.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.