The accused was charged with armed robbery and wearing a disguise with intent following the robbery of a gas station by two masked men.
The Crown's case relied on recognition evidence from the store attendant, who previously worked with the accused, and circumstantial evidence including DNA found on discarded clothing and shoes near the scene.
The court found the attendant's recognition evidence reliable and concluded that the only rational inference from the DNA and circumstantial evidence was that the accused was one of the perpetrators.
The accused was found guilty on both counts.
