The court held that the trial judge's evaluation
of the evidence was not balanced. There were
other material aspects of the evidence bearing
on its credibility, which he should have taken
into consideration but did not. When the
question arises which witness is to be believed
rather than another, and that question turns on
manner and demeanor, the Court of Appeal
always is, and must be, guided by the
impression made on the judge who saw the
witnesses. That the appellate court should not
shrink from overruling the decision of the trial
court, if upon carefully considering the
judgment it concludes that it is wrong. While it
couldn’t be held that the appellant's claim of a
frame-up was proved, it’s a firm view that it
was not ruled out. That at the very least, the
matters pointed out raised reasonable doubt in
the prosecution case, and the appellant ought to
have been given the benefit of that doubt. In
the result, it was not safe to uphold the
conviction of the appellant.