The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.
A preliminary issue arose regarding the summary conviction appeal judge's reference to unadmitted fresh DNA evidence.
The Court of Appeal agreed the judge erred in considering the fresh evidence, but proceeded to assess the merits without it.
The Court found the trial judge properly cautioned himself regarding the intoxicated complainant's evidence and correctly relied on DNA evidence as corroboration.
The trial judge's rejection of the appellant's evidence in accordance with the W.(D.) framework was upheld.
The appeal was dismissed.
