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.
