The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against two young children who attended his home daycare.
The trial judge had admitted the children's unsworn statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule and rejected the appellant's testimony.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred by relying on defence counsel's trial tactics to impugn the appellant's credibility and by finding the necessity criterion for hearsay met without expert evidence of psychological trauma or a proper voir dire on the children's ability to recollect.
