According to him, the appellate court placed undue reliance on evidence that had not been tested in court while overlooking testimony that had been subjected to cross-examination during the trial. He maintained that the legal effect of evidence that went unchallenged during cross-examination was not adequately considered by the Court of Appeal. “I think the Court of Appeal misdirected itself on the position of the law. The statement she gave to the police had not been tested, and you cannot use untested or unsworn evidence to assail tested evidence. The effect of this in law, the Court of Appeal didn’t discuss.