The appellant appealed convictions for sexual interference arising from historical abuse allegations involving child complainants within a family setting.
The appeal alleged material misapprehension of evidence concerning opportunity, bedroom access, and the timing of a disclosure, as well as uneven scrutiny of defence evidence.
The court applied the governing appellate standard for misapprehension of evidence and held that the identified errors were not substantive and played no essential role in the verdict.
It further held that the trial judge was entitled to treat inconsistencies in the complainants’ evidence as peripheral while finding that the defence evidence on opportunity was contrived.
The appeal was dismissed.
