The appellant challenged convictions for sexual offences against multiple young complainants on the basis that the trial reasons were inadequate, the evidence of the child witnesses was inconsistent, and one complainant's account may have been tainted by social worker involvement before a second video statement.
Applying the appellate framework governing sufficiency of reasons and deference on credibility findings, the court held that the reasons, read in the context of the record and the trial process, adequately explained why the trial judge rejected the defence and accepted the complainants' evidence.
The court found no material misapprehension of the evidence and no reversible error in the treatment of similar fact evidence or the impugned complainant's testimony.
The child pornography convictions were not argued and were left undisturbed.
The sexual interference convictions were stayed under the Kineapple principle, the remainder of the conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was refused.
