The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge reversed the onus, improperly resolved the case by choosing between competing versions of events, and erred in treating forensic evidence as neutral.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s reasons demonstrated a full appreciation of the burden of proof and proper application of the W.D. framework.
The court found the appellant’s evidence was reasonably rejected as incapable of raising a reasonable doubt and that the complainant’s evidence, together with supporting evidence, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court also held the trial judge was entitled on the expert evidence to regard the forensic evidence as neutral.
The conviction appeal was dismissed.
