The appellant was convicted of sexual assault with a weapon and forcible confinement based primarily on eyewitness identification by the complainant.
The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge misapprehended the alibi evidence.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in her application of the W.(D.) framework by compartmentalizing the evidence and misapprehended several key pieces of defence evidence.
Concluding that the identification evidence displayed numerous indicia of unreliability and the alibi evidence was strong, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.
