The appellant appealed his summary convictions for committing an indecent act and dangerous driving.
The trial judge had convicted the appellant of the indecent act based on a perceived legal presumption that intent to act wilfully arises when the act is seen by another person.
The appeal court found this to be a legal error, as no such presumption exists, and ordered a new trial on the indecent act charge.
The appeal against the dangerous driving conviction was dismissed, as the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellant's driving in heavy fog was a marked departure from the standard of care.