The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and assault.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in admitting a witness's videotaped statement for the truth of its contents, as the witness claimed no memory at trial and the judge improperly assessed the statement's reliability.
However, the Court applied the curative proviso and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the remaining evidence against the appellant, including eyewitness testimony and the victim's blood on his shoe, was overwhelming.
