It looks like an Albertan man will get another chance at court.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/18/sex-assault-conviction-erased-new-trial-ordered-because-alberta-judge-too-sensitive-to-rape-culture/

I'm not going to say he's innocent - he could very well be a scum bag. But the fact is that at least the court of Appeal recognized that there was a considerable bias against the defendant in the courtroom.

Listen to this gem:

"The case is a discouragement to judges and a warning to women that their credibility will always be a key target of the defence, Prof. Sheehy said."

And why shouldn't it be? You don't get moral exceptions because you're alleging rape. You wouldn't get it if you were accusing someone of murder, so how is that any different?

The guy goes to court, and by all accounts it's a nightmare for him:

"But on three main issues — the complainant’s marijuana use, alcohol use, and whether there had been “flirting” before the alleged offence — the judge “appeared to enter the fray,” and even at times misunderstood what was going on. “In more than one instance, he interjected to ask leading questions or to suggest the most favourable interpretation to the complainant before she had a chance to answer the question,” the court found. “He also demonstrated that he was not listening to or understanding some of the inconsistencies presented by defence counsel.”

So there is obviously a chance that the man in question is a criminal. However given the circumstances, it's also possible that the woman who was engaged in using alcohol and weed had buyers remorse later.

Either way, it's a score for justice that the appeal court is giving this another go around.