The accused was charged with drug trafficking following an undercover drug purchase.
The Crown's case relied entirely on the identification of the accused as the person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover officer.
The officer had viewed a photograph of the accused at a briefing prior to the transaction and subsequently identified the accused at trial.
The defence challenged the reliability of the identification, arguing that the officer's prior exposure to the photograph tainted the identification process and that key identifying features were not recorded in contemporaneous notes.
The court found that while the officer had a good opportunity to observe the suspect and the conditions were favorable, the failure to record specific facial features at the time of the transaction, combined with the officer's expectation to see the accused, created a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the identification.
The accused was acquitted.
