When assessing the relevance of fresh evidence, the court must consider how the trial would have proceeded had the evidence been available, including possible lines of cross-examination it would have opened, rather than assessing relevance as if the trial would have proceeded exactly as it did. Evidence that a complainant exercised a legal entitlement to claim compensation after conviction is not, without more, probative of a fact in issue at trial. A trial judge's direction urging caution about drawing inferences from medical evidence does not necessarily prevent the jury from treating that evidence as supportive of the prosecution case, particularly where the evidence is otherwise left to the jury as relevant evidence they may consider.
The full text is available to signed-in members.