The accused was convicted at trial of sexual exploitation involving a 17‑year‑old relative who lived with him, and received a custodial sentence with probation and ancillary orders.
On summary conviction appeal, he challenged the conviction on multiple grounds including misapprehension of evidence, improper credibility analysis, misuse of prior incidents as grooming evidence, and erroneous reliance on his police statement as a confession.
The court held that the trial judge misapprehended and inadequately analyzed the accused’s statement to police, treating it as a confession to criminal conduct without identifying the conduct admitted or explaining the reasoning.
Because the statement played a central role in rejecting the accused’s testimony and assessing credibility, the error could not be cured under the proviso.
The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.
