The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for sexual assaults against three young girls.
The primary ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred by drawing an adverse inference against the credibility of one appellant's testimony because the defence failed to cross-examine a complainant on alleged written consent documents, invoking the rule in Browne v. Dunn.
The Court of Appeal found no error, holding that the adverse inference was a proper part of the trial judge's fact-finding and weighing of evidence, not a penalty for a tactical error.
The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge misapprehended evidence or failed to give separate consideration to the co-appellant's case.
The appeals from conviction and sentence were dismissed.
