The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, appealed on the grounds that the trial judge relied on impermissible stereotypical inferences and ungrounded common-sense assumptions in assessing credibility.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by relying on stereotypical reasoning regarding the complainant's willingness to engage in public sexual activity and sexual activity during menstruation, which materially influenced the credibility assessment.
The court emphasized that such reasoning violates the rule against stereotypical inferences and impermissible character reasoning.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered, as the curative proviso could not be applied due to the lack of overwhelming evidence.
