«Instead of carefully reviewing the evidence
in the
case in order to determine whether or not the Crown had,
in fact, established that the appellant possessed the specific intent of wilfulness required by s. 173 (1) of the Criminal Code, the trial
judge erroneously convicted the appellant based upon a perceived (but non-existent) legal presumption that the necessary wilfulness was established by the fact that his acts of masturbation were
in fact witnessed by another,» he wrote.