The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting and relying on the complainant's prior consistent statement to a doctor that her injury was caused by 'forced intercourse'.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge improperly used the statement to bolster the complainant's credibility rather than for a permissible purpose under the narrative as circumstantial evidence exception.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
