The accused was charged with robbery and wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence following a driveway robbery in which a victim was assaulted and property stolen.
The Crown’s case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, including a palm print found on the victim’s vehicle that matched the accused.
Expert evidence confirmed the print match but could not determine when the print was placed on the vehicle.
The court held that fingerprint or palm print evidence alone is insufficient to establish guilt unless the surrounding evidence proves the print was made during the commission of the offence.
Because the evidence left open a reasonable possibility that the print was placed on the vehicle at another time, the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
