The appellant, a former psychotherapist, appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences against five female patients.
At trial, the appellant argued that the sexual acts were either consensual, part of bona fide therapy, or occurred outside the therapeutic relationship.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge fundamentally erred in his jury instructions on consent by conflating medical 'informed consent' with criminal consent and failing to properly put the defence's theory to the jury.
The Court also held that the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence from a prior disciplinary hearing under the principled exception, as the necessity and reliability criteria were not met.
