Leslie Karen Monique Paine

The appellant appealed a jury conviction arising from a deliberately set fire, arguing that the destruction of the mattress deprived the defence of potentially useful testing and warranted a stay.

The court held that, although the destruction of the mattress was inappropriate and the item had some relevance, there was no air of reality to accident and overwhelming evidence that the fire was intentionally set.

The possibility that testing would have assisted the defence was speculative.

The reasonable doubt instruction was imperfect but acceptable when read as a whole, and the conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge improperly relied on prior consistent statements, made an unreasonable finding regarding attempted anal intercourse, and reversed the onus when discussing physical evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not use prior consistent statements to bolster credibility, but only to identify the scope of the alleged recent fabrication and assess the explanation offered.

The court further held that the impugned factual finding was reasonably open on the evidence, including testimony and medical evidence.

It also found no onus reversal, as the trial judge merely noted the absence of an explanation capable of raising a reasonable doubt in the context of an admitted intercourse and consent defence.

The appeal was dismissed.