Vanessa Bianca Carew

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, common assault, and mischief, and sought leave to appeal his global sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against the sexual assault and common assault convictions, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of DNA evidence, resolution of inconsistencies, or consideration of post-offence conduct.

However, the mischief conviction was quashed due to insufficient analysis by the trial judge.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to correct a pre-sentence custody credit error, with the overall sentence upheld as appropriate given the nature of the offences and the appellant's record.

The accused, Eric Richard Marshall, was charged with assault, sexual assault, mischief, and two counts of failing to comply with probation orders stemming from incidents on October 19-20, 2017.

The trial involved contradictory evidence between the complainant (PB) and the accused.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, finding the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated by external evidence (e.g., Facebook messages, 911 call, DNA evidence), while rejecting the accused's testimony due to significant inconsistencies and lack of believability.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all five counts.

The applicant sought a review of his continued custody after a Justice found his proposed release plan insufficient and detention warranted on secondary grounds.

The applicant argued the Justice erred in law and principle by not considering his bail rights, the surety's role, and viable release conditions.

The reviewing judge, applying the principles from R. v. St-Cloud, found no error in the Justice's decision, noting the pattern of violence, disregard for conditions, and escalation of alleged offences.

The application for review was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

The applicant sought a variation of his release order to change his residence from a supervised facility to his mother's home, citing his acceptance into a university program as a material change in circumstances.

The court acknowledged the university acceptance as a material change, requiring a fresh analysis of bail conditions.

However, the application was dismissed on secondary and tertiary grounds, as the proposed supervision plan was deemed insufficient to manage the applicant's risk of re-offending or interfering with justice, given his history of impulsivity, past breaches of no-contact orders, and manipulative behaviour, particularly concerning the safety of the complainant and children.