The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference, arguing that the trial Crown engaged in improper cross-examination by asking him to comment on the veracity of the complainant.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the question violated the rule against asking an accused for their opinion on another witness's truthfulness.
The trial judge erred by relying on the appellant's equivocal response to this improper question to erase his reasonable doubt.
The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.
