The ground of appeal is that there was
improper evaluation of evidence. The court
held that it is only in the clearest of cases when
the 1st appellate court has not satisfactorily re-
evaluated the evidence that a 2nd appellate
court would interfere with the decision of the
1st appellate court. That the draconian law that
requires corroboration of evidence of the
victim in sexual offences portrays women as
liars and untruthful. That the evidence of a
victim in a sexual offence must be treated and
evaluated in the same manner as the evidence
of a victim of any other offence. As it is in
other cases, the test to be applied to such
evidence is that it must be cogent.