This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against Mohamed Ali, who was accused of non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant, LSM.
The accused denied vaginal intercourse, claiming other sexual touching was consensual.
The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D) to assess the conflicting evidence.
The accused's testimony was found to be inconsistent and not credible, particularly regarding his statements about ejaculation and his responses to the complainant's accusations.
The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and corroborated by forensic evidence (presence of the accused's semen in her vagina) and the accused's post-incident text messages.
The court rejected defence arguments based on "rape myths" concerning the complainant's behaviour and found that a breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule by defence counsel did not affect the outcome.
The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.
