In the Supreme Court, Fenemor's grounds were that evidence at his trial suggesting he had done something similar to two other female pupils in 1997 and 1998 had been admitted wrongly.
He had been acquitted on a charge relating to one of those girls. No prosecution was brought in respect of the other complainant.
However, she had given evidence in support of the charge heard by a judge alone 12 years ago.
No record of the judge's reasons for acquittal could be found last year when Fenemor was tried on indecently assault of the 7-year-old. Jurors heard then about the historic accusations.
Fenemor's lawyer Greg King argued there should be a rule making propensity evidence inadmissible. It should not have been allowed at the jury trial and was unfair or unduly prejudicial to his client since it had been held insufficient to support a conviction.
But the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the challenged evidence was rightly admitted to the jury and there was nothing unfairly prejudicial to the appellant in its being given again in the second trial.
It dismissed the appeal and said Fenemor's sentence of five months' home detention would be resumed.
- APNZ