The appellant challenged convictions for historical sexual offences against two complainants, arguing errors in third-party records production, admission of discreditable conduct evidence outside the indictment, jury instructions on motive to fabricate, supplementary charge, and failure to charge on recent complaint.
The Court of Appeal held that the counselling records were not shown to be likely relevant, emphasizing that case-specific evidence is required and mere references to abuse or credibility-related topics are insufficient.
The court upheld the admission of evidence concerning abuse in the Bahamas and New Brunswick because the defence had made the broader relationship central to the case and the evidence had strong probative value notwithstanding its discreditable character.
The court also rejected the proposed recent complaint instruction, holding that the doctrine should not be preserved for historical sexual allegations.
Conviction appeal dismissed and sentence appeal dismissed.
