The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, relied on ungrounded common-sense assumptions, misapplied the W.(D.) framework, and erred in analyzing mens rea.
The appeal centered on a sexual encounter where the complainant testified she revoked consent to anal intercourse, which the appellant ignored.
The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, her application of the W.(D.) test, or her conclusion that the appellant had actual knowledge of the complainant's lack of consent.
The appeal was dismissed.
