The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and related offences, arguing that the trial judge erred in relying on palm print evidence found on the victims' car and improperly shifted the burden of proof.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to conclude the circumstantial palm print evidence was consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.
The Court also held that the trial judge properly analyzed and rejected the defence's speculative explanations without shifting the burden of proof.
