The appellant, DM, was indicted on charges of rape and assault against his ex-partner, EW, and sought to introduce evidence of her previous convictions for theft and shoplifting to challenge her credibility. He argued that the preliminary hearing judge improperly reviewed and excluded this evidence, claiming it was relevant to the truthfulness of the allegations.

At the hearing, the Crown contended that the convictions were irrelevant and too remote in time to affect the issue of consent. Lady Dorrian, delivering the opinion of the court, stated that while prior convictions could sometimes be relevant to credibility, they must meet specific criteria, such as being recent or directly related to the charges at hand. In this case, the convictions were deemed minor, distant in time, and unrelated to the rape and assault allegations, making them inadmissible.

The court upheld the decision to exclude the evidence and dismissed the appeal.