The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault and two counts of assault causing bodily harm arising from incidents involving his intimate partner, as well as the resulting intermittent custodial sentence and probation order.
The appeal argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly relied on the rule in Browne v. Dunn when assessing credibility.
The court held that the trial judge was largely correct in finding that several aspects of the appellant’s testimony had not been properly put to the complainant in cross-examination and was entitled to reduce the weight of that evidence.
Any minor factual errors were insignificant and did not materially affect the reasoning or outcome.
The sentence was also found to be within the appropriate range given the seriousness of the injuries and the domestic context.
