Following a brief criminal trial arising from a domestic physical altercation between spouses, the court considered whether the prosecution had proven assault with a weapon and simple assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case turned entirely on conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused, together with photographs of injuries said to support each side's narrative.
Applying the W.(D.) framework and the principles governing circumstantial evidence, the court found the complainant not credible, identified significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in his account, and held that the photographs did not reliably establish how the injuries were caused.
The accused's evidence was found compelling and, in any event, raised a reasonable doubt.
Acquittals were entered on both charges.
