The appellant appealed convictions on multiple historical sexual offence counts arising from allegations by four complainants.
The court held that the jury instructions created a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the reasonable doubt standard by suggesting conviction could follow either proof beyond a reasonable doubt or some lesser level of satisfaction.
The court also held that the trial judge erred in refusing to entertain the self-represented appellant's attempt to obtain child welfare records, and failed in the duty to provide reasonable assistance to an unrepresented accused.
The appeal from conviction was allowed, the convictions and conditional stays were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
