The appellant, Matthew Woodham, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm.
The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in assessing identification evidence, misstated and misapplied the test from R. v. W.(D.), and made palpable and overriding errors in assessing witness credibility by misapprehending evidence, engaging in speculation, and drawing unsupported inferences.
These errors were fundamental to the rejection of the defence's testimony and played a significant role in the conviction.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.
