The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of robbery, breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing robbery, and suffocating another person with intent to commit robbery.
The appeal raised two grounds: first, that the trial judge erred by not instructing himself on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence, even when the witness purports to recognize someone known; and second, that the trial judge applied a different standard of scrutiny to the complainant's and the appellant's evidence when assessing credibility.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the complainant's extended interaction with the appellant reduced the chance of mistaken identity, and that the trial judge was entitled to weigh inconsistencies differently given their varying nature.
