A 17-year-old girl (“Complainant”) alleged that Appellant, a police officer, sexually assaulted her. She alleged that Appellant offered to give her a driving lesson in his car. During the lesson, he told her to stop the car and overpowered her by forcing her arms over her head. He then forcefully removed her clothes, inserted his fingers into her vagina, and exposed his penis. He forced her legs apart and attempted to rape her. She resisted by kicking and screaming for help and eventually managed to jump out of the car and run for help.

Appellant denied the allegation. He claimed that they had discussed the possibility of an intimate affair, and that she did not resist his sexual advances. He denied exposing his penis. The evidence revealed that the Complainant was in shock, and had found the medical examination painful. There were abrasions on her vagina and buttocks, which indicated unlubricated sexual intercourse.  A Regional Trial Court convicted Appellant, and sentenced him to 18 months of imprisonment. Appellant unsuccessfully appealed to a Provincial Court, before appealing to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Appellant claimed that the Trial Court failed to adhere to the cautionary rule of evidence, which requires judges to give less weight to the testimony of a complainant in sexual assault cases.