The appellant’s conviction appeal centres on the evidence that his semen was found in the complainant’s underwear seized by the police on the day of the incident. The appellant argues that this evidence could not act as corroboration for the complainant’s story in the absence of other evidence to explain its meaning. More specifically, he contends that the trial judge effectively took judicial notice that the complainant would have washed or changed her underwear since her last consensual sexual contact with the appellant. Furthermore, he submits that the trial judge misapplied the rule in Browne v. Dunn in her analysis of the underwear evidence. In the appellant’s view, this alleged misunderstanding of the evidence warrants quashing his convictions.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.