The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, as well as his sentence of 12 months in custody and 2 years of probation.
He argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to cross-examine the complainant on inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court admitted fresh evidence to evaluate the claim but found no miscarriage of justice, as the alleged inconsistencies were peripheral and did not affect the trial judge's credibility assessment on material facts.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the sentence proportionate and within the established range for offences involving a breach of trust by a driver.
