The appellant appealed his conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling house and his sentence of two years less a day incarceration.
The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's finding on identity, which was based on circumstantial fingerprint evidence.
The appellant argued a speculative possibility that his fingerprints were on the jewelry box prior to the robbery.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that speculative possibilities do not need to be disproven.
The sentence appeal argued the trial judge failed to consider rehabilitation.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's discretion, given the serious nature of the offence, its impact on victims, and the appellant's criminal record.
Both appeals were dismissed.
