The appellant appealed a jury conviction for sexual assault and argued, among other grounds, that the trial judge failed to properly investigate allegations that jurors had communicated with the officer-in-charge during trial.
The Court of Appeal held that both actual fairness and the appearance of fairness required a fuller inquiry into the allegation.
Because the witness was not permitted to explain an inconsistency and the officer should at least have been called to testify, the inquiry was incomplete and inconclusive.
The resulting appearance of unfairness required that the conviction be set aside and a new trial ordered.
