The accused was charged with sexual assault of a child under sixteen years of age, specifically touching the child with his legs for a sexual purpose and counselling or inviting the child to touch his penis.
The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the eight-year-old complainant and observations by two adult witnesses.
The defence argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and based on leading questions, and that an innocent explanation existed involving a malfunctioning zipper on the accused's pants.
The court found the Crown had not proven the requisite mens rea (sexual purpose) beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both charges.
