The appellant appealed convictions for sexual interference and uttering threats arising from allegations involving a child complainant, arguing that the trial judge misapplied the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), improperly rejected the accused’s evidence, and wrongly treated a letter written by the complainant as a prior consistent statement.
The court held that the trial judge applied the proper W.(D.) analysis and fairly assessed the credibility of both the complainant and the accused.
The court further found that the letter was not relied upon for the truth of its contents but was used only as part of the narrative context.
No reversible error was identified in the trial judge’s reasoning or evidentiary treatment.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.