The appellant appealed multiple sexual offence convictions arising from allegations by three young complainants, challenging the constitutionality of the anal intercourse counts, the jury charge on reasonable doubt, expert evidence on child sexual abuse disclosure patterns, the absence of a clear and sharp Vetrovec warning, and the admission of similar fact evidence.
The court quashed the three s. 159 convictions because the provision had been declared unconstitutional.
The remaining grounds failed: the charge as a whole did not create a reasonable likelihood that the jury convicted on an improper standard, the expert evidence was necessary to explain inconsistent disclosures and recantations, no mandatory strong Vetrovec warning was required, and the similar fact ruling attracted deference.
The appeal was otherwise dismissed.
