A former Edmonton nightclub employee who was convicted of five counts of sexual assault has filed an appeal.
Matthew McKnight, 33, was sentenced at the end of July to eight years in prison after a jury found him guilty of five counts of sexual assault last January.
McKnight was accused of sexually assaulting 13 women ranging in age from 17 to 22 between 2010 and 2016. Court heard McKnight met most of the women in bars and assaulted them at his apartment. He pleaded not guilty, but a jury convicted him on five counts.
On Monday, the Bottos Law Group filed an appeal on McKnight’s behalf, of the the five counts of sexual assault that he was convicted of on Jan. 16.
The grounds for appeal listed by the defence include that “the Crown’s conduct in cross-examining the appellant was abusive, demeaning, prejudicial and inconsistent with the Crown’s obligation to act impartially, causing a miscarriage of justice.”
Get breaking National news
The other grounds for appeal include:
- The cross-examination of the appellant elicited responses that were inadmissible and in contravention of his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- The trial judge erred in holding that sexual activity between the appellant and several complainants occurring in the time period immediately prior to the alleged sexual assaults was not “sexual activity that forms the subject matter of the charge,” and hence exempt from the requirements imposed by section 276 of the Criminal Code
- Evidence from the various counts against the appellant was erroneously admitted and used as similar fact evidence on all of the counts on the indictment
Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Doreen Sulyma sentenced McKnight to 16 and a half years, but reduced his sentence to 10 years based on the totality principle.
His sentence was further reduced due to an assault McKnight suffered at the Edmonton Remand Centre and the judge’s belief the former nightclub consultant has an excellent chance for rehabilitation.
On Aug. 20, the Crown in the case filed an appeal of McKnight’s sentence on the grounds that it “is not proportionate to the moral gravity of the offences or the moral blameworthiness of the offender.”
Others reasons cited in the appeal include that the sentencing judge erred in her application of the totality principle and overemphasized mitigating factors and failed to properly consider aggravating factors. The Crown also feels “the sentence is demonstrably unfit.”
The prosecution asked for a sentence of 22 and a half years in prison, while McKnight’s lawyer suggested five to nine years.
Comments