The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his two step-daughters and designated a dangerous offender.
He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on bad character evidence, reasonable doubt, and prior inconsistent statements.
He also appealed his sentence, arguing he was entitled to the benefit of the newly enacted long-term offender provisions.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions, while pre-dating Lifchus and not perfect, did not result in an unfair trial.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed; although the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the long-term offender provisions, the court applied the curative proviso because the expert evidence overwhelmingly established that his risk could not be controlled in the community.
