The appellant appealed convictions for three counts of assault arising from two altercations outside a warehouse.
The appeal court found the trial judge made material factual findings unsupported by the evidence, including concluding the incident was a planned attack despite both parties agreeing no evidence supported that conclusion.
The court also held the trial judge’s reasons were inadequate, failing to address conflicting evidence, the issue of consent, and key credibility determinations.
The reasons were so deficient that meaningful appellate review was impossible and the reasoning process leading to conviction could not be understood.
The court held the errors created a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice and rendered all convictions unsafe.
