those messages, satisfied the low threshold required for authentication. Additionally, the private investigator explained the photographs of the texts and the photos taken and their origins.
 The decision of trial counsel was not a tactical decision,
one made to gain some sort of strategic advantage. It reflected
considered judgment informed by heed of correct principles. The
alleged failure of due diligence should not be permitted to defeat
the reception of this cogent evidence directed to a material issue
on appeal. The interests of justice require its reception.
 The respondent rejects the appellants’ claim that the
cogency requirement has been satisfied and that the due diligence
factor does not warrant exclusion of the proposed evidence.
 The respondent reminds us of the three-pronged focus of
the cogency requirement. The proposed evidence must be relevant to a potentially decisive issue at trial. It must be credible.
And it must be sufficiently probative that, when taken with the
rest of the evidence received at trial, it could reasonably be
expected to have affected the result.
 The due diligence factor, the respondent concedes, is not a
condition precedent to the admissibility of fresh evidence on
appeal. It is concerned with the broader integrity of the criminal
justice system, including the need for finality in the trial process.
Due diligence requires an analysis of the reasons why evidence
tendered for reception on appeal was not adduced at trial. It is a
factor to be taken into account, along with the requirement of
cogency, in deciding whether the “interests of justice” warrant
admission of the evidence.
 The respondent says that we should not receive as fresh
evidence the affidavit of C.B.’s trial counsel. As a general rule,
apart from appeals in which ineffective assistance is advanced as
a ground of appeal, affidavits of trial counsel explaining trial
strategy are not received as fresh evidence. Moreover, the trial
judge permitted the cross-examination, admitted the report of the
private investigator and considered the impact of the cross-examination on the weight he assigned to the complainants’ testimony. This was as counsel agreed at trial.
 As for the forensic examiner’s affidavit and report, the
respondent says that it fails to meet the cogency requirement and
could have been obtained by the exercise of due diligence at trial.
That it was not adduced there was a tactical decision made by
competent trial counsel.
 The respondent submits that the evidence of the forensic
examiner is not relevant to the issue of consent or to the credibility of the complainants because its introduction would invite the
application of myths and stereotypical reasoning. The respondent