The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of assault against his wife.
At trial, the judge acquitted the respondent after finding the complainant credible but the respondent not credible, yet still having a reasonable doubt.
The trial judge had excluded evidence from the complainant's father regarding what the complainant told him on the phone during the incident, ruling it inadmissible hearsay.
The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in excluding this evidence, as it was admissible as a prior consistent statement to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication raised by the defence during cross-examination.
The appeal court held that admitting this evidence could have positively impacted the complainant's credibility and negatively impacted the respondent's, leading to a flawed application of the W.(D.) framework.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
