Howard Krongold (duty counsel)

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences arising from events on May 8, 2013, and his sentence of eight years imprisonment.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's handling of a section 276 application and her treatment of the underlying issues in her reasons for judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly appreciated the complainant's inconsistency regarding her relationship with an acquaintance and correctly concluded that further details would not have advanced the defence's motive theory.

The trial judge's reasons were thorough and well-grounded in the evidence.

The appellant was convicted at trial of sexual interference and sexual assault arising from an incident in a laundry room involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant of charges relating to a separate hotel incident but found him guilty of the laundry room charges.

The trial judge's conviction was based primarily on his finding that the appellant's failure to report the complainant's inappropriate sexual comments to her mother, cease contact with her, or tell her such comments were inappropriate demonstrated the falsity of his denial of sexual misconduct.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence by failing to consider the appellant's explanation that he did not report the conversation to the complainant's mother because he feared it would cause a "big commotion" and potentially lead to self-harm by the complainant, given her documented mental health issues.

The Court held this failure to address a plausible explanation constituted a miscarriage of justice and allowed the appeal.