Appeal court flips Surrey sex assault conviction, orders new trial
Published 12:30 pm Wednesday, June 17, 2026
The British Columbia Court of appeal has set aside a Surrey sexual assault conviction and ordered a new trial.
Arjun Aaron Singh Sandhu had been found guilty by a Surrey provincial court judge.
Justice Peter Willcock found the Surrey judge’s assessment of Sadhu’s credibility was “affected by misapprehensions of evidence, circular reasoning, and an erroneous consideration of the appellant’s statements as an admission,” according to his June 17 reasons for judgment, delivered in Vancouver.
Justices Karen Horsman and Geoffrey Gomery concurred with Willcock’s decision.
There is a publication ban on information that could identify the complainant. The court heard the sexual assault was alleged to have occurred in a hotel room in 2020.
“I cannot see how the conviction can withstand scrutiny in light of the fundamental errors in the assessment of the evidence identified by the appellant. Despite the judge’s clear acceptance of the complainant’s testimony as credible and reliable, the conviction must be set aside and a new trial ordered,” Willcock found.
“The appellant was interviewed by the police about the events in question more than a year later, on January 10, 2022. Inaccuracies and omissions from the statement to the police were put to him in cross‑examination and used to impeach his credibility,” the appeal court judge noted.
Willcock noted the lower court judge had “expressly found that credibility and reliability of the parties were paramount to her decision.”
“The trial judge found there were a series of inconsistencies in the testimony of the appellant that caused her to reject his evidence,” Willcock noted. “She considered the testimony of the complainant to be credible and reliable because she was firm in her responses, did not exaggerate, and admitted frailties in her memories.”
Willcock said a conviction “must always rest on proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt demands more than a ‘considered and reasoned acceptance’ of the complaint’s evidence.”