1 total
Convictions and consecutive sentences for sexual interference against two young children upheld; propensity warning not strictly required.
The appellant was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault against two five-year-old girls for whom he occasionally babysat.
He appealed his convictions on the grounds of unreasonable verdict, prejudicial interruption of closing submissions, and failure to give a propensity warning to the jury.
He also appealed his sentence of two years consecutive on each count.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the verdicts reasonable, no prejudice from the trial judge's intervention, and that the jury instructions adequately warned against cross-pollinating evidence between counts despite the lack of a specific propensity warning.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed.
