Court of Appeal upholds conviction for sexual assault of appellant's daughter, where appellant's case was that he had believed his sleeping daughter to be his partner, on the grounds that: (a) the correct question was of mistake as to consent, not mistake as to identity, and recklessness as to whether the person is consenting to the sexual act is sufficient to prove the mental element in sexual assault; (b) even if there was an oversight or error in charging the jury in respect of intoxication, this was not one of substance in the circumstances of this case; (c) notwithstanding this, the defence of intoxication is not open to a person who commits a crime of basic intent while intoxicated and the trial judge was correct not to allow this defence to go to the jury; and (d) the fact that the appellant had not left the family home by agreement but as a result of an incident that had resulted in a barring order was an appropriate matter to raise in cross-examination
Appeal against conviction for sexual assault - complainant daughter of appellant - conviction came after retrial when jury could not agree on a verdict in the first trial - complainant had been resting in appellant's bed in his home - appellant claimed at trial that when he engaged in the act of touching his daughter, he believed he was touching his partner - whether in her charge to the jury the trial judge had dealt with the defence of intoxication correctly - whether trial correctly approached as turning on mistake as to identity rather than mistake as to consent - whether the trial judge had wrongly admitted evidence that the appellant was the subject matter of a barring order as a result of a previous incident involving a physical altercation with one of his daughters.