The appellant, a police officer, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm following an incident during the arrest of a youth for drunkenness.
The trial judge convicted the appellant, relying on the evidence of the youth and a bystander, while explicitly stating that four other defence witnesses did not observe the events prior to the arrival of a second officer.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge had misdirected himself by failing entirely to consider the evidence of the four defence witnesses, which did bear directly on the vital time period.
