The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexually assaulting two minor complainants.
He argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility under the W.(D.) framework and in refusing to allow his counsel to cross-examine the complainants on their victim impact statements at sentencing.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and his reasons were sufficient for appellate review.
However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by effectively denying defence counsel the opportunity to establish an 'air of reality' to justify cross-examining the complainants on their victim impact statements.
The matter was remitted for a fresh sentencing hearing.
