The appellant appealed jury convictions on two counts of trafficking in a narcotic, arguing loss of identification evidence, inadequate jury instructions on in-dock identification, inconsistent verdicts, and unreasonable verdicts.
The court held that the lost identification card relating to an acquitted count caused no prejudice to the defence on the remaining count.
It further found the jury was thoroughly instructed on the frailties and unfairness of in-dock identification.
Considering the surveillance, close-range observations, self-identification to police, and other objective features of identification, the court concluded the verdicts were reasonably supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.
