The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose arising from allegations of sexualized conduct toward a teenage complainant in a household setting.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by treating the appellant's lack of a credible explanation for admitted conduct as confirmatory of the complainant's evidence, thereby using disbelief of the accused as positive evidence of guilt and effectively shifting the burden of proof.
Although the appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence concerning alleged abuse within the household, the court found it unnecessary to rely on that material.
The conviction appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
