The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a young woman with an intellectual disability.
The trial judge found the complainant's evidence reliable and convicted the appellant.
On appeal, the majority held that the trial judge's reasons were deficient in several respects: the trial judge failed to adequately address the complainant's reliability, particularly her heightened suggestibility as established by expert evidence; the trial judge appeared to find the complainant's evidence self-corroborating when it was not; and the trial judge failed to explain why the defence evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.
The majority concluded these deficiencies, taken together, foreclosed meaningful appellate review and set aside the conviction, ordering a new trial.
The dissent argued the trial judge's reasons were adequate and that the trial judge was clearly alive to the reliability issues.
