The appellant, Aamir Syed, appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, the verdict was illogical, and the judge misapprehended evidence, specifically regarding an expert's toxicology report, the complainant's alcohol consumption, and a potential motive to fabricate.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were adequate, his credibility findings were entitled to deference, and there was no misapprehension of evidence.
The court affirmed that it was open to the trial judge to accept or reject parts of a witness's testimony and to find no evidentiary basis for a motive to fabricate.
