The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm, being disguised with intent, and possession of a prohibited firearm.
He argued that the trial judge misapprehended his evidence regarding a backpack and a bandana, as well as the expert fingerprint evidence, and that these errors played an essential part in the conviction.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge's misapprehensions were material to his reasoning process, particularly in applying the doctrine of recent possession, and created positive evidence against the appellant.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
