Mangesh Duggal

The appellant appealed his two convictions for assault and his sentence of fourteen months less four months credit for pre-trial custody.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider relevant evidence regarding credibility and failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not ignore material evidence and provided adequate reasons.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for the attempted murder of his daughter, arguing that the Crown's opening address was improper.

He submitted that the opening did not faithfully describe the evidence and improperly referenced cultural considerations, encouraging the jury to rely on negative stereotypes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the variation between the opening and the evidence was minor and the comments regarding cultural considerations were not improper.

The appellant appealed her sentence for aggravated assault, arguing it exceeded the range suggested by Crown counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reformatory sentence and three years' probation to be fit and balanced.

The court noted the gravity of the crime and the appellant's lengthy record for violent offences, while also recognizing her remorse and efforts to overcome drug and alcohol problems.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held that the sentence was not manifestly unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.