Fresh evidence going to a central issue in a murder case — specifically, who brought the weapon to the scene — may be sufficiently cogent to quash a conviction and order a new trial, even where the evidence comes from a witness with prior convictions, provided the evidence is apparently credible and capable of bearing significantly on the jury's assessment of the circumstantial case. The question of who produced a weapon in a fatal struggle is logically critical where the Crown case depends on circumstantial inference, and fresh evidence on that point can alter the significance of other evidence (DNA, ballistics, text messages) in a way that creates a significant possibility of acquittal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.