The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of robbery, arguing the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence and the alibi defence.
The Crown's case rested entirely on the eyewitness identification of two victims who had a brief, stressful encounter with the assailant and provided generic descriptions lacking distinctive features.
The Court of Appeal found the jury instructions deficient, particularly regarding the failure to connect the standard instruction on eyewitness frailties to the specific concerns of the case and the lack of a Hibbert caution regarding in-dock identification.
The convictions were quashed and acquittals entered.
