The appellant was convicted of robbery and using an imitation firearm in the commission of that offence.
He was sentenced to six months' incarceration for robbery and 12 months' consecutive for the firearm offence.
On appeal, the appellant challenged the convictions on four grounds: the admissibility of dog tracking evidence, the trial judge's use of post-offence conduct evidence (flight from police), the trial judge's treatment of evidence regarding the appellant's intoxication, and a misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's location.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.
