The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a jury trial.
The conviction rested primarily on the competing credibility of the appellant and the complainant regarding whether sexual activity on a boat was consensual.
On appeal, the appellant challenged the jury instructions on reasonable doubt and expert evidence, and sought to introduce fresh evidence from his son, who was present on the boat but did not testify at trial.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the grounds relating to jury instructions but admitted the fresh evidence.
The Court found the son's evidence was sufficiently cogent to potentially affect the verdict and accepted the appellant's explanation that he did not call his son at trial to protect him from the stress of testifying amid high-conflict family proceedings.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.
