The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, misapprehended testimony, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) principles and the Sheppard standard for sufficiency of reasons.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were detailed, properly addressed the evidence, and correctly applied the law.
The court upheld the finding that the complainant was too intoxicated to consent and that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.
