Warning the following story discusses content related to sexual assault, and might be graphic or triggering for some readers.

A Penticton man has been found guilty of sexual interference with the daughter of his then-common-law partner.

The case is under a publication ban regarding any information that may lead to the identity of the victim. As a result, the man will be referred to as Mr. S.

Justice Weatherill read his reasons for judgment in a Penticton Supreme Court on March 13.

Mr. S had been charged in 2018, with sexual interference with an individual under the age of 16 and sexual assault. Following the Kienapple principle, the sexual assault charge was stayed. The Kienapple principle is a conviction cannot be registered on a charge if there has been a conviction on another charge that was based on the same delict or cause.

The man had confessed to touching his partnersa国际传媒檚 then eight-year-old daughter on at least three occasions between 2017 and 2018, although he tried to get the confession thrown out.

The incidents happened while the man was babysitting the girl, although exact dates were not determined.

Mr. S had confessed to the RCMP in 2018 to having done the acts, following his arrest after an investigation that was spurred by the victim talking with a schoolmate.

The man would later challenge the confession at trial, arguing that it was involuntary and inadmissible and that he had been manipulated into it.

The defence also challenged the reliability of the victimsa国际传媒檚 statements and testimony.

Mr. S tried to argue that he had confessed in part because the victimsa国际传媒檚 mother had told him that if he didnsa国际传媒檛 plead guilty and accept responsibility the Ministry of Children and Family Development would take her kids away.

Justice Weatherill ended up ruling that both the childsa国际传媒檚 testimony, statements and the mansa国际传媒檚 confession were admissible as evidence in court.

At multiple times during his confession, the police officer questioned his willingness and understanding of what he was doing, according to the transcripts shared in court.

The man continued to deny in court having ever inappropriately touched the victim.

Justice Weatherill noted that the confession and the victimsa国际传媒檚 own statements to the police, which Mr. S could not have known about, lined up in a way that supported the allegations.

In addition, the justice found Mr. Ssa国际传媒檚 testimony to be unbelievable, pointing to examples such as changing his story while under cross-examination, or saying that the social worker was encouraging him to lie to the police.

sa国际传媒淚 found much of his evidence troubling because they did not have the ring of truth to it,sa国际传媒� said Justice Weatherill. sa国际传媒淭here are several examples his evidence either defies common sense or is contradictory to other evidence.sa国际传媒�

Mr. S will be back in court at a later date to be sentenced.