The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for robbery.
He sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Court of Appeal rejected as not capable of belief.
The Court found the trial judge conducted the trial with scrupulous fairness despite the appellant choosing to self-represent.
The verdict was not unreasonable, and the trial judge did not err in failing to expressly address the defence of intoxication, given the appellant's own testimony.
The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.