The appellant, a young person at the time of the alleged offences, appealed convictions for two counts of sexual assault involving a younger half-sibling.
The trial involved only the complainant and the accused as witnesses, and the trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and rejected the accused’s testimony, resulting in conditional discharges and probation.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed errors in the credibility assessment by relying on factors that could not reasonably undermine the accused’s credibility, including the wording of his denials, his description of the parties’ distant relationship, his denial of an unrelated incident, and his recollection of household details.
Because these reasons improperly influenced the rejection of the accused’s evidence and the conclusion that it did not raise a reasonable doubt, the convictions could not stand.
A new trial was ordered.
