The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, raising five grounds including reasonable apprehension of bias, misapplication of the twin myths regarding delayed reporting, uneven credibility assessment, misapprehension of evidence, and errors in finding no motive to lie.
The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge's interventions and credibility findings, concluding there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and that the trial judge's factual findings were entitled to deference.
The appeal was dismissed.
