So, here we go again.

The most significant part of that article is the legal thinking that had this new evidence been known at the time, it would have changed the way medical evidence was considered.

Now surely medical evidence is medical evidence. Not something to be spun in accordance with the CPS/ Prosecution lawyers/judge/jury's preconceived ideas of a man's guilt.

Oh, how naive I am!

And they're considering the possibility of a retrial? The man is due for release in September after serving 6 years for an unsafe conviction!