The appellant challenged convictions for sexual offences against two child complainants on the basis that the trial judge misapprehended key defence evidence.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge incorrectly concluded the appellant first mentioned a cushion during cross-examination, when that detail had already been given in examination-in-chief, and then used that mistaken premise as the main articulated basis for rejecting the appellant's credibility.
Applying the material misapprehension standard, the court found the factual error infected the core reasoning on credibility and rendered the convictions unsafe.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered at the Crown's discretion.
