The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose.
He argued the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to his evidence compared to the complainant's, and erred in drawing an adverse inference from his failure to call his father as a witness.
The appellant also sought to introduce fresh medical evidence explaining his father's absence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to admit fresh evidence, finding it was a strategic decision at trial not to call the father.
The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility assessments and found no error in the limited adverse inference drawn regarding the missing witness.
The appeal was dismissed.
