A young person, A.C., appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided insufficient reasons by failing to conduct a proper W.(D.) credibility analysis and to adequately consider the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, as well as the complainant's motive to fabricate.
The Superior Court found that the trial judge's conclusions were flawed due to the absence of a W.(D.) analysis, leading to a failure to consider significant contradictions in the complainant's testimony and the appellant's evidence regarding his belief in consent.
The court determined these failures constituted a palpable and overriding error and that the reasons were insufficient for appellate review.
The conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.
