The appellant, R.S.L., appealed convictions for sexual assault, receiving material benefits from sexual services, and advertising sexual services, and sought leave to appeal his global sentence of seven and a half years.
The appeal challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the complainants, arguing errors in inferring credibility from consistent statements, failing to consider collusion, and improperly relying on lack of embellishment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, which was owed heightened deference.
Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was found to be within the appropriate range and not demonstrably unfit.
