Phillipe Cowle

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.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault against two young teenagers, appealed his conviction and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's credibility assessment of the complainants, specifically the use of "lack of exaggeration" as a factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's reasoning, interpreting the impugned passages as noting the absence of factors that would diminish credibility rather than using lack of exaggeration as a positive makeweight.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the imposed prison term of 8.5 years was within the appropriate range given the breach of trust and serious consequences for the victims.