The accused was tried on charges arising from a residential break and enter proved entirely by circumstantial evidence.
The court held that the surveillance evidence, tracking data, association with co-actors, counter-surveillance driving, and video evidence placing the accused at the refuge location shortly after the offence established that he was the fourth participant in the Mazda used during the offence.
Applying the rule that guilt must be the only reasonable inference on circumstantial evidence, the court rejected alternative explanations.
The accused was found guilty of break, enter and theft, and of possession of property obtained by crime on a theory of joint possession.
