The appellant, S.H., appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences against his two stepdaughters and his seven-year global sentence.
The Court of Appeal identified two key errors by the trial judge: improper use of the appellant's provincial driving record to draw adverse inferences about his character and credibility, and a misapprehension of the appellant's testimony regarding a television program.
Despite the Crown's argument that these errors were harmless and could be cured by the proviso, the Court found that the cumulative effect of the errors was material to the trial judge's credibility assessment of the appellant, especially given the sparse reasons for accepting the complainants' evidence.
The Court concluded that the errors contributed to a miscarriage of justice and ordered a new trial on all counts.
