The appellant challenged convictions arising from two school-based sexual touching allegations involving young complainants and eyewitnesses whose accounts contained significant conflicts and evidence of pre-disclosure discussions among the girls.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate because they did not explain how the possibility of collusion affected the admission and use of similar fact evidence, nor how conflicting evidence and reasonable doubt were assessed.
Applying the adequacy-of-reasons framework and the principles governing similar fact evidence and credibility findings, the court found that meaningful appellate review was not possible.
The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.
