The appellant was convicted of careless driving for running a red light. He appealed, arguing the justice failed to properly consider his evidence that he stopped at the light and only proceeded when it was safe. The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered. The justice did not apply the test from R. v. D.W., which requires the justice to consider whether the accused's evidence raises a reasonable doubt, even if not believed. While disbelief of the appellant could be inferred, the justice failed to consider the third part of the D.W. test regarding reasonable doubt.