New Zealand's highest court has rejected another appeal by a convicted sex offender who assaulted his drunk mate.
In June last year Glendene man Peter James Brooks, 53, was sentenced to eight years in prison after a jury found him guilty of "abhorrent" sexual offending against a 21-year-old man in 2016.
That verdict came after the victim - and three complainants from previous trials - gave evidence about Brooks' predatory sexual offending.
Appeal denied: Convictions stand for West Auckland man jailed for sex assault on drunk mate
Brooks was jailed by Judge Nevin Dawson in the Auckland District Court.
Following sentencing the Herald revealed details of Brooks' trial - including how three men he was charged with violating in 1990, 1995 and 2013 were called to give evidence about what he allegedly did to them when they were teenagers.
Brooks was acquitted after trials for the alleged offending against those three men, but their evidence about encounters with him helped seal his fate.
Their evidence was initially ruled inadmissible, but the Crown appealed that decision and it was overturned by the Court of Appeal, meaning the complainants were allowed to speak up in court.
Brooks argued that should not have happened and in his bid to overturn his convictions, invited the Court of Appeal to "revisit that decision".
The Court of Appeal rejected his bid and their decision was published by the Herald in July.
Brooks then took his case to the Supreme Court.
He applied for leave to appeal against the initial Court of Appeal judgement, and the post-trial decision.
Brooks claimed the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the probative value of propensity evidence from two complainants outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice.
In a decision released today Court of Appeal Justices Susan Glazebook, Mark O'Regan and William Young refused to allow Brooks to take further action.
They said his application did not meet the requirements of the Senior Courts
"It attempts to re-argue the application of settled law to the facts of this case," their decision read.
"There is thus nothing of general or public importance raised.
"Nor does anything raised suggest any risk of a miscarriage of justice."