Jago appeared remotely from custody at the Court of Appeal in Auckland today as he serves his two-and-a-half-year sentence.

His lawyer Ian Brookie explained the two-pronged appeal.

Brookie first argued Jago’s conviction was unreasonable and that the jury should have entertained reasonable doubt.

Central to his argument was that Paul Oliver, a survivor who waived his name suppression, was uncertain of the timing and location of the assault when questioned during the trial.

“There’s just no way a jury could have fairly convicted this man,” Brookie said.

“Our submission is that evidence was so unreliable the jury should have entertained reasonable doubt.”

Brookie also took issue with the judge’s summary before sending the jury to deliberate.

The judge had advised the jury the historic nature of the complaint, which came more than two decades after the assault, did not mean it was necessarily untrue.

Brookie argued the judge should have balanced this statement with the defence’s argument that the complaint could have been false.

“The concern here is the jury is effectively being told by the judge that a delayed complaint is not untrue,” he said.

However, Crown lawyer Robin McCoubrey disagreed.

“The very purpose [of the judge’s statement] is to provide balance to correct the misconception that [a delayed complaint is more likely to be false],” McCoubrey said.

The second part of the appeal was that Jago’s sentence was too harsh and that he should have been sentenced to home detention instead of imprisonment.

Brookie argued it was wrong to characterise the offending on the whole as “sexual offending against children”, because only one of the two complainants was under the age of 16 at the time.

He also said Jago should have been given a bigger discount for community contributions, though the Crown argued the discount he received was adequate.

“The only just and considered response should have been home detention,” Brookie said.

“Ultimately, there was just a plain wrong decision not to impose home detention here. It was not appropriate to say deterrence required imprisonment.”

The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision for a later date.

– RNZ