The appellant appealed convictions for offences related to a shooting incident where shots were fired at a parked truck.
The case against the appellant was circumstantial, with key issues at trial being perpetrator identification, timing of the shots, and the continuity of firearm and shell-casing exhibits.
The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the continuity of shell casings.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was clearly aware of and addressed the continuity arguments, and was not required to refer to every aspect of the evidence in his reasons.
The court also rejected the argument that the verdict was unreasonable, as it was dependent on the continuity argument which was dismissed.
The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.