The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence that his ejaculation inside the complainant was unintentional.
The complainant had consented to unprotected vaginal intercourse on the strict condition that the appellant not ejaculate inside her.
The trial judge found the appellant was aware of this boundary, intentionally disregarded it, and was in complete control when he ejaculated.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and holding that the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's account was reasonably supported by the record.
