The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering a threat to cause death, criminal harassment, and failing to comply with an undertaking, as well as his global sentence of seven months' incarceration.
He argued the verdict was unreasonable due to flawed credibility assessments and that the trial judge created an appearance of bias by extensively questioning witnesses.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the credibility assessments were open to the trial judge and the questioning was merely to clarify testimony from unsophisticated witnesses.
The sentence was also upheld as fit.
