This phrase is always in inverted commas - why? - because it is an entirely artificial definition - in fact it's actually defined by the opposition!
You have followed this case from the moment your friend was arrested, all the way through the trial – or you are the actual person who was convicted. In either case, you think you know as much about the evidence as anyone, if not more so.
This is very dangerous thinking, because after a conviction the rules of this game change. You cannot argue the case again as you have known it. The case went to trial, the arguments were put – the jury decided. The cell door closed.
YOU NEED FRESH EVIDENCE
Well, the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Case Review Commission are a bit more relaxed about this than in the past, but you still need some important evidence, that might well change the outcome of the case, that was not reasonably available to the defence at the trial.
This is a very hard rule. For example, if a witness who might well have helped, took off to Australia before the trial, did not leave a statement or any form of evidence – and the defence thought simply “well we can do without that witness” – well hard luck, that witness was “reasonably available” to the defence. They could have brought that witness back to the trial.
This goes for looking at the evidence at the trial in a “different way” – i.e. different to the arguments the defence put up. They chose the argument to make at trial and if they failed with it, they cannot just simply change their minds and try again. .
YOU CANNOT RUN THE TRIAL AGAIN.
IT IS OVER.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT GAME NOW WITH DIFFERENT RULES.
You will have to find something new – really new – and important to the case. This is not easy. In fact sometimes it is impossible. But keep that in your head. Was this gone into at the trial? If it was, forget it for now, get onto something else. You might return to the other thing later, BUT NOT NOW