Brian E. Devlin

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that the trial judge misapprehended the DNA evidence by assuming the complainant's DNA was found on the inside of the appellant's trousers, a finding unsupported by the record.

As this misapprehension was central to the trial judge's finding of guilt, the appeal was allowed, the conviction vacated, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of rape after the trial judge admitted evidence of fourteen other sexual assaults as similar fact evidence.

Eleven of these episodes had no direct evidentiary link to the appellant, but were admitted based on their similarity to three other episodes where the appellant was identified.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that similar fact evidence must have some evidentiary link, direct or circumstantial, to the accused to be admissible.

The admission of the eleven unconnected episodes was highly prejudicial, and the appeal was allowed, directing a new trial.