The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against conviction for indecent assault, holding that the magistrate's rejection of the appellant's version of events was based predominantly on assessments of objective plausibility rather than demeanour, and that on the appellate court's own independent review of the evidence, the appellant's account remained reasonably possible even if not probable. Because the difference in conclusion could not be attributed to the magistrate's advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses, the conviction was set aside and an acquittal entered. The Court also identified as improper the prosecutor's cross-examination accusing the appellant of fabricating travel plans without any apparent basis for the accusation, though this did not form a ground of appeal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.