Jeffery Couse

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against two complainants who attended the same special education program.

At trial, the judge dismissed a similar fact evidence application due to concerns about inadvertent tainting between the complainants and another witness.

However, the trial judge subsequently convicted the appellant without explaining why those same tainting concerns did not affect his assessment of the complainants' credibility and reliability on the trial proper.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the failure to address the potential tainting in the credibility assessment was a reversible error, particularly given the witnesses' intellectual disabilities and memory issues.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

Specifically, the appellant contended the trial judge impermissibly relied on the complainant's religious beliefs to reject the defence theory that she had a motive to fabricate the allegations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that evidence of religious motives was admissible to explain the timing of disclosure and rebut the fabrication theory.

The court found no error in the trial judge's treatment of demeanour evidence or his assessment of investigative gaps.