Three judges on B.C.'s highest court have overturned convictions against a man found guilty of six sex offences against two of his daughters.

Justices Harvey Groberman, Richard Goepel, and Lauri Ann Fenlon ordered a new trial after determining there were deficiencies in a B.C. Supreme Court trial judge's charge to the jury.

The B.C. Court of Appeal ruling acknowledged "the vulnerability of the complainants in this case, and the personal anguish that a new trial may cause them".

There's a ban against publishing, broadcasting, or transmitting evidence that could identify the complainants or witnesses in the case.

The decision, which was written by Groberman, noted that Crown counsel "put forward a coherent narrative of events" to the jury in the B.C. Supreme Court trial, acknowledging inconsistencies in the evidence of each of the complainants.

The defence lawyer in the trial "delivered a closing address to the jury that was unusual in many respects", according to the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling. 

"From the start (where counsel explained to the jury that accused persons do not call evidence except in cases where there is 'not much doubt') to the finish (where counsel presented a theory of child abandonment syndrome for which there was no evidence), counsel’s closing strayed from what was appropriate. After he finished (and in the absence of the jury), the judge admonished him for going 'well beyond the bounds of propriety'," Groberman wrote.

The B.C. Court of Appeal justice added: "Much of the defence closing was taken up with speculation, anecdotes on wrongful convictions and other events outside the scope of the evidence, and with counsel’s own opinions about the quality of the evidence and the police investigation. In terms of substance, the defence closing concentrated on the demeanour of witnesses. Counsel did not review the inconsistencies in the complainants’ evidence in any systematic fashion, but did highlight some discrepancies, concentrating on differences between their statements to the police investigator and their evidence in court. He also noted that the complainants did not agree on the timing of various events."

The accused retained a different lawyer in his successful appeal for a new trial.

Groberman also wrote that the trial judge provided a "remarkably brief" charge to the jury, "particularly given the number of counts, the fact that there was more than one complainant, and the fact that so much of the defence counsel's closing to the jury was improper".

According to the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling, the trial judge provided a brief response to one question from the jury before the jury returned and found the accused guilty on six of seven counts.

"The jury must have understood that the only real issue for them...was whether they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the events described by the complainants occurred," Groberman wrote. "A review of evidence by the judge would have served to draw the jury’s attention to major contradictions in the evidence."

In the eyes of the B.C. Court of Appeal panel, the failure to do that did not prejudice the accused. Moreover, the trial judge's response to the jury's question was "adequate and accurate".

However, the ruling stated that the trial judge's "very limited instructions" to the jury were "simply unequal to the task".

"In the case before us, where most of the judge’s instructions treated the two complainants’ allegations together, it was incumbent upon him to take care to ensure that the jury understood that the credibility of each complainant should be assessed independently," Groberman wrote. "Most importantly, there ought to have been an instruction on the impermissibility of reasoning based on the accused’s propensities or character."