The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.
The appeal raised issues regarding alleged improper cross-examination by Crown counsel concerning the appellant's attraction to the complainant, and claims of uneven scrutiny of evidence by the trial judge.
The Court of Appeal found the cross-examination permissible given the specific circumstances of the case, which involved a non-physically forced relationship with an underage teenager.
The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility or the fairness of the trial.
Regarding the sentence, the court affirmed that the six-year and six-month imprisonment for sexual interference was not demonstrably unfit, considering aggravating factors such as breach of trust, grooming, and the victim's age, consistent with sentencing principles for child sexual offences.
The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was also dismissed.
