The appellant sought leave to appeal convictions and sentence arising from allegations that he spat blood on correctional officers during a prison disturbance and uttered a death threat to one officer.
The appeal judge held that the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles from W.D. regarding the assessment of an accused’s evidence and provided inadequate reasons linking accepted facts to the essential elements of assault.
In particular, the reasons did not address whether the spitting was intentional or explain the reliability of the complainants’ evidence in chaotic circumstances.
The conviction for uttering a threat was upheld, but the assault convictions were set aside due to insufficient reasons and improper credibility analysis.
A new trial was ordered on the assault counts.
