The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching on five grounds, including unreasonable verdict, improper reliance on demeanour, reversal of the burden of proof through motive-to-fabricate reasoning, improper use of prior consistent statements, and refusal of a further sentencing adjournment.
The court held that the trial judge was alive to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, properly assessed them, and did not improperly rely on demeanour or prior statements.
It further found no reversal of the burden of proof and no basis to interfere with the refusal of an additional adjournment.
The appeal was dismissed.
