The appellant appealed his convictions for four counts of sexual assault and his 11-year sentence.
He argued that expert evidence on the neurobiology of trauma was improperly admitted and that similar fact evidence was erroneously used across counts.
The Court of Appeal found that while the expert evidence was admitted in error, the error was harmless due to robust jury instructions, applying the curative proviso.
The court also upheld the trial judge's admission of similar fact evidence.
A motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the appellant's deteriorating health was dismissed, as it would not have altered the proportionate sentence.
The appeal was dismissed.
