Central to the findings of guilt in this case were the trial
judge’s conclusions that D.P. and G.D. were credible witnesses
who gave reliable evidence.
 Counsel for the appellant C.B. challenged the veracity of
G.D.’s account on the basis that the photographs taken after the
alleged offence belied G.D.’s description of those events. It was
essential that in reaching his conclusion on these issues he based
his findings on a correct version of the evidence adduced at trial.
He failed to do so.
 The trial judge also appears to have rejected the evidence
of the photos on the basis that they were not disclosed by the
defence until well over a year after the relevant events. In the
absence of any obligation on the defence to provide disclosure or
turn the cellphone over to the police for forensic examination,
these were not factors relevant to the veracity of G.D.’s evidence.
Ground #3: The fresh evidence
 The appellants seek leave to introduce as fresh evidence
on the hearing of the appeal, affidavits from Marty Musters, a
computer forensic examiner, and from C.B.’s trial counsel. Each
relates to the text messages and photos on which the complain-
ants were cross-examined at trial and, more particularly, to the
authenticity and integrity of those electronic documents.
 The respondent cross-examined C.B.’s trial counsel on
her affidavit but did not cross-examine the forensic examiner.
The background facts
 The trial judge made specific findings of fact about the
text messages on which D.P. was cross-examined and the photo on
which G.D. was cross-examined. The relevant passages of the trial
judge’s reasons on these issues have already been excerpted. No
useful purpose would be served by their repetition here. Suffice it
to say that the trial judge considered both the text messages and
photos to have no probative value.
The affidavit of the forensic examiner
 Marty Musters, a person qualified to conduct forensic
analysis of digital and electronic devices, examined the cellphone
said to have been used by the appellant C.B. in communications
with the telephone number of D.P. He was asked to extract and
extracted these communications and any photographs and
accompanying metadata for the date on which the offences were
alleged to have occurred. He provided an opinion about whether
any of the data or photographs had been altered or changed in