The appellant appealed conviction and sentence arising from offences involving choking used to facilitate a sexual assault, while the Crown also appealed sentence.
The court held the trial judge was entitled, on the evidence including forensic evidence, to find that the choking facilitated the sexual assault notwithstanding inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.
Although the trial judge misstated the law on corroboration in sexual assault cases, that error could only have benefited the appellant.
Leave to appeal sentence was granted to both sides, but no error in principle or demonstrable unfitness was shown, and all appeals were dismissed.
