The appellant was convicted of sexual assault perpetrated over a lengthy period against his seven-year-old nephew and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.
On appeal, the appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence.
The conviction appeal was dismissed as there was no basis in the record for the appellant's contentions that the trial judge erred in believing the complainant or that the complainant's testimony was coerced.
On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the principle of parity and did not give appropriate weight to mitigating factors including the appellant's youth, absence of prior criminal record, prior victimization, and intellectual disability.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors.
The sentence appeal was allowed only to the extent of vacating the victim fine surcharge.
