The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a 21-year-old complainant.
The appellant, aged 53, had invited the complainant to a motel room where he had planned a sexual encounter.
He provided alcohol to the complainant, who became severely intoxicated.
The appellant engaged in sexual contact with the complainant, who testified she was semi-conscious or in and out of consciousness throughout.
The appellant claimed the encounter was consensual and that he honestly believed the complainant was consenting.
The trial judge found the complainant was intoxicated and semi-conscious, to the appellant's knowledge, and therefore could not consent.
The appeal raised three grounds: (1) the trial judge failed to provide adequate assistance to the self-represented appellant by disallowing cross-examination regarding potential collusion; (2) the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding the appellant's honest but mistaken belief in consent; and (3) the trial judge misapprehended evidence resulting in an unreasonable verdict.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.