The appellant appealed a jury conviction for sexual assault, advancing grounds relating to limits on cross-examination, alleged misapprehension of evidence, the jury instruction on assessing the reliability of a young person's memory, and the admission and use of hearsay evidence.
The court held that the cross-examination directions were appropriate, the review of the evidence was fair and accurate, and the impugned instruction was proper when read in the context of the charge as a whole.
Although some evidence would preferably not have been elicited, the court found no reversible error and no miscarriage of justice, particularly given the absence of defence objections and the trial judge's limiting instructions.
