The appellant was convicted of robbery and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence, based primarily on the recognition evidence of an unsavoury Vetrovec witness.
The appellant argued the trial judge failed to apply the requisite scrutiny to the unsavoury witness's evidence.
The majority held that the trial judge recognized the Vetrovec dangers, applied the requisite scrutiny, and was entitled to accept the recognition evidence without corroboration upon finding it credible and reliable.
The dissent would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the conviction arose from a failure to apply sufficient scrutiny, particularly given that the alleged confession was recounted only after the witness had already identified the accused from surveillance footage.
