In this CCRC referral fresh evidence was adduced with regard to a mobile phone leading to the conviction being quashed .
The applicant had been convicted on the basis of a partially successful identification procedure at the time of trial and he was convicted despite the fact that the assailant was said to be linked to a bycycle , which he was not .
The fact that there was a phone discovered at the scene wasn't enough - it was in the Turkish language and the applicant was a Somali man . Tests showed the DNA was not his but it was not possible to identify who it belonged to .
The matter came before the CCRC and they had the phone retested - using the sample they were able to link it to a suspect of Turkish extraction who had a bycycle who had been active in the area . These were determinative additional matters of substance .
This case is illustrative of the fact that fresh DNA evidence of its own is often not enough - see for example the case of R v Nealon [ 2014 ] where fresh DNA led to the quashing of a conviction of attempted rape but in the Nealon case in the absence of an alternative suspect all possible innocent explanations for the DNA had to be excluded such as innocent contamination .