The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual exploitation of a young person.
He argued that the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with his acquittals for other sexual offences, that the Crown improperly invited the jury to compare e-mail wording without expert evidence, and that the trial judge erred by failing to give a Vetrovec warning regarding the complainant.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury was entitled to rely on the e-mail evidence, that direct evidence of authorship distinguished the case from those requiring expert evidence, and that inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence did not warrant a Vetrovec warning.
