1On an appeal by way of rehearing under s 208(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the appellant must demonstrate material legal, factual or discretionary error; due deference is owed to the trial magistrate's advantage in assessing witness credibility.
2Where an accused's exculpatory account fails to identify what innocent movement could explain the conduct described by two prosecution witnesses — including physical contact with the complainant's neck — the magistrate is not required to hypothesise an innocent explanation the accused did not himself provide.
3Minor inconsistencies between prosecution witnesses (e.g. differing vantage points producing slightly different descriptions) and omissions in a complainant's initial account to police do not necessarily undermine credibility, particularly where the core account is corroborated and consistent with contemporaneous recordings.
