Det. Kyle McIntyre

The young person was charged with armed robbery of a bank based on video surveillance and a palm print found on the exit door.

The Crown's case relied heavily on a fingerprint expert testifying for the first time, whose evidence was marred by late disclosure, documentary errors, and reliance on unfiled known prints.

The court rejected the expert's opinion as unreliable and denied the Crown's late application to call a verification officer.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the young person, who merely entered and left the bank with the actual robber, had the requisite knowledge or intent to be a party to the offence, nor was there reliable evidence a firearm was used.

The young person was acquitted.

A youth was charged with robbery while using a firearm following a bank robbery on December 29, 2010.

The Crown's case rested primarily on fingerprint evidence found on the interior exit door of the bank and eyewitness testimony.

The accused was not the actual robber but the second youth who entered and exited the bank with the robber.

The court found serious deficiencies in the expert fingerprint evidence, including failure to provide a proper expert report, disclosure violations, documentary errors, and use of prints from a different arrest date without disclosure.

The court also found insufficient evidence of the use of a firearm and no evidence of the accused's knowledge or participation in the robbery beyond mere presence.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.