The appellant appealed his convictions for child luring, invitation to sexual touching, child sexual abuse and exploitation material offences, and weapons dangerous.
He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his defence of mistaken belief in age by setting the reasonable steps standard too high and misapprehending evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the 14-year-old complainant's age despite obvious red flags.
The court also rejected arguments to extend the private use exception for child pornography and found no reversal of the burden of proof on the weapons charge.
