The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the trial judge failed to consider the whole of the evidence.
Specifically, the appellant contended that if the trial judge had a reasonable doubt regarding one allegation (kicking the complainant in the ribs), she should have had a reasonable doubt concerning the remaining allegations.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of guilt were based on a reasoned acceptance of the complainant's evidence, a rejection of the appellant's evidence, and consideration of corroborating evidence.
The court affirmed that an appellate court cannot interfere with a trial judge's assessment of credibility unless it is unsupported by any reasonable view of the evidence.
