The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and that the trial judge misapprehended defence expert evidence.
The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel's failure to prepare the appellant for cross-examination on his police statements, the ill-advised decision to call certain defence witnesses, and the failure to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements constituted ineffective representation that prejudiced the defence.
The Court also found the trial judge erred in her treatment of the defence urologist's expert evidence by misapplying the burden of proof.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
