The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.
The appeal court found that the trial judge made several errors, including mischaracterizing the primary issue as a credibility contest, improperly relying on a prior consistent statement to bolster the complainant's credibility, applying an incorrect standard of consent (requiring "informed consent" in criminal law), and misapprehending expert evidence regarding the medical indication for the breast examination.
These errors led to a negative assessment of the appellant's credibility and potentially shifted the burden of proof.
The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.
