The appellant, a building superintendent, was convicted of sexually assaulting a tenant in her apartment.
He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, scrutinized evidence unevenly, and improperly relied on his bad character.
The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge engaged in impermissible moral reasoning by rejecting the appellant's evidence based on his misogynistic views and lack of respect for the complainant.
The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.
