The appellant challenged convictions for sexual assault, sexual touching of a young person, and inviting a young person to touch him for sexual purposes, arguing multiple errors in the jury charge and seeking relief from a four-month custodial sentence.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly prevented the jury from speculating about collusion where no evidentiary foundation had been laid through cross-examination, and that the charge, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the defence position and the relevance of prior inconsistent statements to credibility.
On sentence, the court found no misapprehension of the psychologist’s evidence, no error in principle, and no basis for a conditional or intermittent sentence given the breach of trust, criminal record, and need for denunciation.
The conviction appeal was dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was dismissed.
