statements. He submits that not only did the trial judge fail to tell
the jury that the prior consistent statements did not enhance Mr.
Akindejoye’s reliability or corroborate his trial testimony, the trial
judge in fact suggested that the jury could use the prior consistent statements in assessing Mr. Akindejoye’s credibility.
 In light of my decision to allow the appeal on the W. (D.)
ground, I do not believe that it is necessary to address this ground
of appeal, and I would decline to do so.
(6) Were the verdicts unreasonable?
 The appellant argues that the verdicts in this case are unsafe
because they are based on the uncorroborated evidence of two
Vetrovec witnesses who admitted to fabricating evidence under oath,
and whose stories were inconsistent as between each other and as
between themselves. He submits that judicial experience tells us
that no reasonable jury could convict based solely on these
 This argument can be dealt with summarily. In my view,
a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have found the appellant guilty of the offences charged.
 In evaluating the reasonableness of the jury’s verdict in
a case that turns on findings of credibility, the reviewing court
must ask whether the jury’s verdict is supportable on any reasonable view of the evidence: R. v. H. (W.),  2 S.C.R. 180, 
S.C.J. No. 22, 2013 SCC 22, at para. 2. The reviewing court must
remain mindful that the trier of fact is best-placed to assess the
significance of any inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony,
and their motive to lie: R. v. François,  2 S.C.R. 827,
 S.C.J. No. 66, at pp. 835-37 S.C.R.; R. v. Beaudry, 
1 S.C.R. 190,  S.C.J. No. 5, 2007 SCC 5, at paras. 4, 63.
 I cannot say that, had the jury been properly instructed on
the use they could make of Mr. Akindejoye’s and Mr. Clark’s
exculpatory evidence, they could not reasonably have found the
appellant guilty. In my view, despite the witnesses’ inconsistencies
and fabrications, it was open to the jury to find the appellant
guilty on both counts on the whole of the evidence. It would
accordingly not be appropriate to enter acquittals in this case.
 I would allow the appeal, set aside both convictions and
order a new trial.