The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against his nephew.
He appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility by relying on his prior convictions for driving-related offences without sufficient detail about the nature, dates, or specifics of those convictions.
The trial judge characterized these convictions as crimes of dishonesty demonstrating callous disregard for the rules.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the manner in which evidence of the appellant's criminal record was adduced at trial deprived the trial judge of the information necessary to make an informed assessment of the impact of those convictions on the appellant's credibility as a witness.
