Peter J. Royal

In a criminal appeal concerning adequacy of reasons, the appellant challenged convictions that included sexual assault.

The court held that, read fairly, the trial judge’s reasons made clear that the alibi evidence was neither credible nor reliable.

The court further held that the reasons were sufficient to explain the reasoning process.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions remained affirmed.

The Court held that the private use exception in child pornography prosecutions has three elements: lawful sexual activity, consent to recording, and strict private use.

Exploitation is assessed within the lawfulness inquiry, not as a separate extra requirement.

Because the trial judge failed to assess exploitation holistically under s. 153, legal error materially affected the acquittals and a new trial was ordered.

In a criminal appeal concerning convictions for sexual assault and unlawful touching, the appellant argued that trial reasons were insufficient and that the burden of proof was misapplied.

The Court held that the functional test for sufficiency was met because the reasons, read in context, explained why guilt was found and permitted meaningful appellate review.

The Court also held that the trial judge properly applied reasonable doubt principles and did not impermissibly decide the case by merely choosing between competing accounts.

The appellant’s denial was considered but did not raise a reasonable doubt on the record.

The appeal was dismissed.