The appellant, an armoured car service employee, was convicted of theft from an automated banking machine.
The trial judge relied on the finding that the appellant had been issued both combinations to the machine.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, as the Crown had conceded at trial that the exhibit did not prove the appellant received both combinations.
The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and restitution orders, and ordered a new trial.
