The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, failed to properly consider expert toxicology evidence regarding the complainant's intoxication and capacity to consent, and erred in relying on equivocal post-offence conduct.
The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to explain her pathway to concluding the complainant was unconscious and incapable of consenting, failed to address gaps in the expert evidence, and improperly jumped to an inference of guilt based on post-offence conduct.
The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.
