The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and breach of probation.
The appeal was based on two grounds: that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's clothing, and that the trial judge made an unsupported inference about the appellant's behaviour regarding washing bedding.
The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors on both grounds, which were central to the credibility assessments of the complainant and the appellant.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
