The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and uttering a threat, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, reached an unreasonable verdict, and failed to properly scrutinize the frailties of the sole eyewitness's identification evidence.
The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence did not cause a miscarriage of justice and the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge erred by failing to adequately analyze the specific frailties of the eyewitness identification, particularly given the lack of corroborating evidence.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.
