The appellants appealed their convictions for assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable, that he erred in his assessment of eyewitness identification evidence, gave insufficient reasons, improperly relied on post-offence conduct, and failed to consider self-defence.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were reasonably supported by the evidence of independent eyewitnesses who observed the group assault.
The court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in his credibility findings, properly applied the law regarding parties to an offence, and correctly assessed the post-offence conduct of fleeing the scene.
