The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault with a weapon against his spouse.
The central issue at trial was the reliability of the complainant's memory, given she suffered a traumatic brain injury two months after the assault.
The trial judge relied heavily on the testimony of a treating psychologist, treating her assessment of the complainant's memory as expert evidence despite her not being qualified as an expert.
The Court of Appeal found this was an error, as the trial judge improperly gave the psychologist's lay opinion expert weight.
However, the Court applied the curative proviso, concluding the error did not cause a substantial wrong because ample other admissible evidence supported the trial judge's findings on the complainant's memory.
The conviction and sentence were upheld.
