Background
Abdulrahman Abouzid was convicted of sexual interference after sexual activity with a 13-year-old complainant on March 29, 2022. He did not testify, but a police statement was admitted by consent. In it, he denied any sexual activity and said the complainant had told him she was 17.
The trial judge rejected his statement as internally inconsistent and contradicted by reliable evidence. Although she found the complainant generally unreliable, she found the sexual activity proved by DNA and eyewitness evidence. She also accepted evidence from the complainant’s mother and sister that each had told Abouzid, before March 29, that the complainant was 13.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. It held that the trial judge accurately described the mother’s and sister’s evidence about the calls as unchallenged: Abouzid did not directly deny the conversations in his police statement, his account had been found implausible, and their testimony was not shaken in cross-examination.
The court also rejected the argument that the trial judge gave inadequate reasons for accepting their evidence. A trial judge need not address every minor inconsistency or every closing argument. Here, the reasons showed awareness of the credibility issues and adequately explained the rejection of the claimed reasonable mistake of age defence. The evidence supported the finding that Abouzid believed the complainant was under 16 or was willfully blind to that information.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court will not require trial reasons to resolve every minor inconsistency in the record.
- Evidence that an accused was told a complainant’s age can defeat a claimed reasonable mistake of age defence.
- A trial judge may accept reliable evidence from some witnesses while finding another witness generally unreliable.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the deferential review of trial-level credibility and reliability findings in criminal appeals. Reasons are sufficient when they meaningfully address the live issues and permit appellate review; they need not be exhaustive.