The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and threatening death, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, applied unequal scrutiny to defence and Crown evidence, and misused his criminal record.
The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding the trial judge erred in law by using the appellant's record of prior assaults to assess credibility without limiting instructions, effectively using it as propensity evidence.
The court also found the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding a social media post and unfairly scrutinized defence witnesses.
The appeal was allowed, convictions vacated, and a new trial ordered.
