R v Aylwin

The case of R v Aylwin involved an appeal against conviction and sentence by the appellant, a police officer, who had been found guilty of one count of indecent assault. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeals. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to present alternative factual bases for the charge of indecent assault and that the cross-examination of the appellant was prejudicial and irrelevant. The Court found no error in the judge's decision and concluded that the appellant was not prejudiced by the Crown's amendment of the indictment or the cross-examination. The appellant also argued that the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, but the Court found that the jury had sufficient evidence to infer the essential elements of the offence. Finally, the appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, but the Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's discretion and concluded that the sentence of 100 hours of community work was appropriate.