The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation of the young complainant.
The Crown argued the trial judge misapprehended forensic evidence showing the complainant's saliva on the respondent's underwear.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge misunderstood the DNA evidence and its ability to confirm the complainant's testimony.
The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.
