The appellant appealed his conviction from June 10, 2014, arguing he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at trial and that he would have testified in his defence had his counsel been effective.
The appellant sought to introduce new evidence consisting of his testimony and that of his spouse to support his claim of ineffective assistance.
The Court of Appeal rejected the new evidence due to lack of credibility and implausibility, finding that cross-examination revealed falsehoods in the affidavits regarding contact between the appellant and his counsel during trial preparation.
The court also found the appellant's account of events on the night of the alleged abduction lacked logic and was inconsistent.
The appeal was dismissed.
