The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault and two counts of assault with a weapon arising from incidents in a domestic relationship.
The appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on prior consistent statements made by the complainant to neighbours to bolster her credibility.
The appeal court reviewed the evidentiary record and the trial judge’s reasons and concluded the impugned passage was ambiguous but did not demonstrate legal error.
Applying the presumption that trial judges know and apply the law, the court held the trial judge was presumed to have relied only on admissible aspects of the neighbours’ evidence such as demeanour and observed injuries.
The appellant failed to establish that the trial judge improperly used prior consistent statements, and the convictions were upheld.
