22 Oct 2020
The complainant's evidence was found to be so manifestly discredited and unreliable, by way of multiple material inconsistencies and proven falsehoods corroborated by independent documentary and witness evidence and Crown concessions, that as a matter of law a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict on the specified charges; continuation of trial on those charges would be unjust and unsafe.
11 Jul 2016
Leave to adduce further evidence was declined because the new evidence lacked credibility and cogency and would not undermine the safety of the verdict; counsel's investigative and tactical choices were reasonable in the circumstances and could not have affected the outcome; appeal against conviction dismissed.
5 May 2016
Appeal allowed in part: exceptional circumstances under s49(2)(a) exist because strict application of s49(1) would practically preclude the appellant from presenting his only realistic defence (reasonable belief in consent); court granted permission under s49(2)(a) to admit evidence from appellant and certain co-defendants about their interactions and one prior sexual relationship but refused permission for recantation/inconsistent conduct evidence and refused to give a s49(2)(b) direction to displace conclusiveness of the convictions; convictions of co-defendants thus remain conclusive but o…
4 Feb 2016
The Court admitted the Crown's propensity evidence: convictions relating to E were admissible for charges of kidnapping/detention (charge seven) and the sexual violation charges (charges nine and ten) because the proven prior offending showed a highly probative tendency to use violence and fear to obtain sexual submission and to detain partners, and that probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice; convictions relating to A and K were admissible for the detention/kidnapping charge for the same reasons.