The Crown appealed acquittals on multiple sexual offence counts involving two young complainants in a judge-alone trial.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapprehended the Crown's purpose in seeking to rely on the evidence on each count as similar fact evidence across the indictment, wrongly characterizing the purpose as an attack on credibility rather than proof of a pattern refuting coincidence and confirming the complainants' accounts.
The court further held that, in a non-jury multi-count trial where the evidence was already before the court, reasoning prejudice and moral prejudice carried little weight.
The proposed similar fact evidence was highly probative and should have been admitted.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
