The appellant appealed his convictions for unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and choking with intent, as well as his sentence.
On the conviction appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's decision to permit cross-examination on his prior conviction for attempted murder under the Corbett framework, and alleged improper Crown conduct during cross-examination and closing argument.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to allow the cross-examination given the defence's all-out attack on the complainant's credibility and the absence of other evidence to neutralize that attack.
The Crown's conduct was found to be vigorous but proper advocacy.
On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded that the dangerous offender hearing should have proceeded under post-2008 legislation but sought to uphold the designation under the curative proviso.
The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the curative proviso was unavailable due to significant evidentiary overlap between the designation and sentencing stages and the possibility that fresh evidence could affect the designation determination.
