The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving a young child.
The case turned largely on credibility and forensic evidence concerning DNA and amylase found on the complainant’s underwear.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge materially misapprehended the forensic evidence by incorrectly finding the appellant’s DNA in the crotch area of the underwear and by misunderstanding the quantity and significance of the DNA deposit.
The misapprehension was central to the trial judge’s credibility analysis, as the forensic evidence was relied upon to corroborate the complainant and discredit the appellant’s denial.
Because the errors played an essential role in the reasoning process leading to conviction, a miscarriage of justice occurred and a new trial was required.
