The appellant appealed a summary conviction for sexual assault.
The case turned on conflicting testimony between the complainant and the accused, with numerous inconsistencies in the complainant’s account regarding the sequence of events, alleged assault, and surrounding circumstances.
The appeal court held that the trial judge failed to adequately explain how significant contradictions and credibility concerns were resolved, contrary to the requirements articulated in appellate jurisprudence governing sufficiency of reasons and the application of the reasonable doubt standard.
The absence of clear reasoning prevented meaningful appellate review.
The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered before a different judge.
