The appellant appealed his convictions for incest, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.
The central issue was whether the trial judge provided adequate jury instructions regarding evidence of the appellant's discreditable conduct, including alleged physical abuse and sexual misconduct outside the indictment period.
The Court of Appeal found the instructions inadequate, noting they failed to caution the jury against using the evidence to infer the appellant was the type of person to commit the offences or to conclude he was deserving of punishment.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
