The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon against his estranged spouse.
He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the complainant's post-offence demeanour, improperly rejected his evidence, and sought to introduce fresh expert evidence that a mark on his finger was not a bite mark.
The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and that the fresh evidence, even if believed, could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result given the strength of the other evidence.
