Paul Slocombe

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual offences involving two stepdaughters and also appealed a nine-year sentence.

The court held that although the jury charge pre-dated the governing reasonable doubt instruction case and did not expressly address the third branch of the credibility framework, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the requirement that the verdict be based on the evidence.

The court rejected challenges to the answer to a jury question, the gross indecency charge, and the use of similar fact evidence, noting the limiting instruction and the strength of the Crown's case.

The sentence was held to be fit given the repeated abuse of trust and serious abuse of children in the appellant's care.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant challenged both conviction and sentence following a jury trial for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued that the jury charge inadequately addressed the burden on the Crown to disprove accident and that the trial judge improperly prevented the defence from calling five witnesses concerning a later incident involving the complainant.

The court held that the charge made clear that the Crown had to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury could not convict if left with a reasonable doubt on accident.

The court also found no prejudice and no reviewable error in the exclusion of the proposed defence evidence.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.