The appellant appealed convictions for obtaining and attempting to obtain for consideration the sexual services of a person under eighteen, and also appealed sentence.
The court upheld the admission of a prior police statement, finding it relevant and not unfairly prejudicial in a judge-alone trial.
The court dismissed an extensive fresh evidence application alleging appearance of unfairness arising from comments by a provincial court judge to defence counsel and a chambers discussion during a pre-trial motion, holding there was no interference with the defence and no prejudice.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed because the trial judge properly weighed the appellant's personal mitigation against the seriousness of sexual exploitation offences involving young persons and the need for deterrence.
