The appellant appealed his convictions for possession, accessing, and making child pornography available.
The central issue at trial was the appellant's knowledge and control over illicit material found on computers seized from his father's residence.
The trial judge relied on circumstantial evidence, including dates from a Digital Forensic Report that was not formally admitted into evidence.
The Court of Appeal found that while the verdict was not unreasonable based on admissible evidence, the trial judge's material reliance on the unadmitted report constituted a misapprehension of evidence, which was essential to the reasoning process and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
