The appellant, a Catholic priest, appealed his convictions for gross indecency and indecent assault relating to historical sexual abuse of a male complainant.
The appeal centered on the trial judge's reliance on expert evidence regarding delayed recall and recovered memory to explain discrepancies in the complainant's testimony, including the appellant's arrival date and the absence of a described birthmark.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's use of the expert evidence, his assessment of the complainant's credibility, or his evaluation of the appellant's testimony.
The appeal was dismissed.
