The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, raising three grounds: that the trial judge erred in finding the appellant's evidence unbelievable due to the complainant's lack of motive to fabricate, that the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the evidence, and that the trial judge made inappropriate behavioural assumptions.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the law regarding motive to fabricate by rejecting the specific motive alleged by the defence based on the evidence, did not apply uneven scrutiny, and based credibility findings on the specific past interactions between the parties rather than generalized assumptions about behaviour.
