The appellant, G.M.C., appealed his convictions for assault and compliance charges, following a 12-day trial.
The appeal was based on three grounds: the trial judge's alleged improper judicial notice of "memory science," uneven scrutiny of evidence (including credibility assessment, demeanour, and use of bad character evidence), and reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding that the trial judge's observations on memory were common sense, that there was no reversible error in the credibility assessments or application of different standards, and that the isolated incidents did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The court affirmed the convictions.
