The appellant appealed his conviction for historical sexual assault, arguing the trial judge failed to properly address discrepancies between the complainant's evidence and that of her sister, and misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's demeanour upon disclosure.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's brief reasons were responsive to the issues and disclosed no misapprehension of evidence.
The trial judge was entitled to find that discrepancies were explained by the passage of time and to rely on the consistent evidence of the complainant's emotional upset during disclosure to support her credibility and reliability.
