The appellant was convicted by a jury of multiple offences arising from a home invasion, including robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault.
The primary evidence linking the appellant to the crime was a fingerprint found on a car near the scene, along with circumstantial evidence of the perpetrator's flight path.
On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and the jury was improperly instructed on eyewitness identification.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fingerprint and circumstantial evidence were capable of supporting a reasonable inference of guilt, and the jury instructions on identification were adequate.
