The appellant appealed his convictions for accessing, possessing, and distributing child pornography.
The child pornography was found on his computer, but he argued that other people had access to it.
The trial judge found that the only reasonable inference on the circumstantial evidence was that the appellant had control over his computer and committed the offences.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Villaroman test and dismissed the appeal.
