The case confirms that to overturn a trial judge's acceptance of a witness's credibility on appeal, the appellant must demonstrate that the finding is inconsistent with incontrovertible evidence, glaringly improbable, or contrary to compelling inferences — factors such as prior inconsistent statements, failure to make allegations at the scene, and minor conflicts with other witnesses' evidence, whether individually or in combination, may fall well short of that threshold. The case also illustrates that a trial judge's treatment of expert evidence will not be disturbed where the judge has dealt with the matter fully in reasons, even if a summary reference to the expert's conclusion elsewhere in the judgment does not fully reflect the nuances of cross-examination.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.