The case confirms that the common law fresh evidence principles (reasonable diligence, high probability of different verdict, credibility) remain relevant to the exercise of the statutory discretion under s 75A(7)-(9) of the Supreme Court Act 1970, though not determinative. Covert recordings made to entrap a person into further conduct, rather than to protect existing legal rights, do not fall within the 'protection of lawful interests' exception in s 7(3)(b)(i) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007. Evidence of a transaction occurring six years after the events in issue, involving different parties and different characteristics, lacks the 'significant probative value' required for admission as coincidence evidence under s 98(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 100 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 100 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.