Respondent was tried for one count of rape and one count of abduction for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl and forcing her to sleep with him for the next three nights. At the trial level, the judge applied the cautionary rule and found Respondent not guilty of rape or abduction. The cautionary rule requires the Court to consider the intrinsic danger of deciding sexual assault cases only based on the alleged victim’s testimony, and to pay heed to the existence of factors that minimize the risk of a wrongful conviction. In applying this rule, the trial judge was acting contrary to dicta from the High Court in S v D & Anor, where the rule had been criticized for being irrational and for failing to comply with constitutional protections against sex discrimination. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the trial judge inappropriately applied the cautionary rule in a case of alleged sexual assault.