EP#219 | Judge's Logic Destroyed on Appeal

**Sponsored by EasyDNS** Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: **notonrecord**

A domestic assault trial. Twelve charges. A mixed verdict. Then an appeal that changed everything.

In this episode of *Not On Record*, criminal lawyers Michael Bury and Nick discuss a remarkable appeal victory involving a highly contested domestic assault prosecution. After a nine-day judge-alone trial, the accused was acquitted of most charges but convicted on three counts. The defence believed serious errors had been made in the trial judge’s credibility analysis and took the case to appeal.

The discussion explores one of the most important issues in criminal law: how courts assess witness credibility and reliability. The case centred on major inconsistencies between sworn family court affidavits and criminal trial testimony. Rather than treating those inconsistencies as damaging to credibility, the trial judge attributed them to a supposed “filtering process” by police, lawyers, and court procedures.

Nick explains how the appeal challenged that reasoning, arguing there was no evidence and no legal foundation for excusing contradictory sworn statements on that basis. The appeal court ultimately agreed, finding that appellate intervention was warranted and ordering a new trial.