A man convicted of defiling a teenage girl has had his conviction overturned by an appeal court. The three-judge court ruled that remarks made by the trial judge during the case “crossed a line,” affecting how the jury would assess parts of the defence. According to the appeal court, the trial judge suggested that if the jury rejected the man’s claim that he did not have sex with the alleged victim, they might take a “jaundiced” view of his evidence that he believed the complainant was 18. The appeal court found that this guidance prevented the jury from properly considering the second element of the defence and deprived the appellant of the benefit it might otherwise have provided. Both reports describe the same core issue: the appellate court overturns the outcome not on the underlying allegation itself, but because the trial judge’s comments interfered with the jury’s proper evaluation of the defence. The decision means the conviction cannot stand as it was originally entered.