The appellant appealed a summary conviction for sexual assault and breach of recognizance, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the credibility analysis required by R. v. W.(D.).
The appellate court held the trial judge improperly treated the case as a credibility contest between the complainant and the accused, rather than applying the full W.(D.) framework.
The reasons relied heavily on the complainant’s demeanour and failed to explain how the evidence as a whole established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of inconclusive DNA evidence and other contradictory facts.
The court concluded this constituted a palpable and overriding error of law.
The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.
