The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence for assault arising from a public altercation with his girlfriend witnessed by several civilian motorists.
The appeal alleged misapprehension of evidence, unequal scrutiny of Crown and defence witnesses, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an unfit sentence due to immigration consequences.
The court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings and factual conclusions were open on the record, that no improper differential scrutiny was demonstrated, and that fresh evidence did not establish incompetence or miscarriage of justice.
Applying the deferential standards governing conviction and sentence appeals, the court also held that the suspended sentence appropriately accounted for immigration consequences without undermining sentencing principles.
The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.
