A former One Bermuda Alliance election candidate and chairman of West End Development Corporation found guilty of sexual assault is appealing his conviction for a second time.

Ray Charlton was given a suspended jail sentence in January after an incident in August 2018 when he grabbed the buttocks of a 20-year-old woman at her home in Sandys.

At his trial in March, 2021 he denied the charge, saying that he had only patted the woman on her back, but was found guilty by magistrate Craig Attridge.

Appealing that conviction in the Supreme Court last year, Charlton changed his defence, claiming that a cocktail of prescription and over-the-counter drugs had caused him to suffer bouts of “mania”.

He backed up that claim with a report written by Sebastian Henagulph, a forensic psychiatrist, but the appeal was thrown out by Puisne Judge Shade Subair Williams.

During yesterday’s hearing, Elizabeth Christopher, representing Charlton, asked that a second “clarifying” report by Dr Henagulph be submitted.

But reading through that report, the appeals judges claimed some of its contents appeared to contradict the first report.

They pointed out that in one report Dr Henagulph had argued that the drugs were “likely” to have caused a bout of mania. In the second report he said the drugs may have “possibly” changed Charlton’s mental state.

They also noted that in one report Dr Henagulph had said that a combination of drugs was responsible for the mania outbreak before claiming that a single drug contained in an over-the-counter medication for acid reflux could have been responsible.

Sir Christopher Clarke, the President of the Court of Appeal, said: “The first report was difficult to follow and the second report is confusing. I find it bordering on the incoherent.”

Justice of Appeal Geoffrey Bell added: “Speaking for myself, I find it startling that you can take an over-the-counter drug and it causes mania, which is what you’re saying.”

Dr Henagulph’s reports also appeared to baffle Ms Christopher. She repeatedly had to turn her back on the bench to take advice from her client in the public gallery.

Becoming increasingly exasperated, the judges eventually lost patience and told Ms Christopher that they were standing down until she had taken direction from Charlton.

Ms Christopher argued that, if the court was willing to accept the new evidence, the conviction should be overturned on the grounds that it was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

But in an unusual move, she added: “It doesn’t make sense to send it back for a retrial because he has done the hard part. He was not highly culpable, so I am asking that the court give a sentence that would not result in conviction.”

Sir Christopher replied that Charlton “could not have it both ways”, pointing out that the Appeals panel could not consider changing Charlton’s sentence before an appeal had gone before the Supreme Court.

Justice of Appeal Ian Kawaley noted that, according to Dr Henagulph, Charlton would not have committed the offence had he not been “in the midst of a manic state”.

But Mr Justice Kawaley added: “That is strong mitigation, but it would not eliminate criminality completely.”

Sir Christopher agreed.

He said: “None of this shows that happened was an act independent of the exercise of his will.”

Alan Richards, for the Crown, argued that the defence had repeatedly shifted its position.

He argued that Dr Henagulph’s second report should not be accepted as evidence because it offered no new evidence and contained “a degree of opacity”.

The Court of Appeal will deliver its ruling at a later date.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers