The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking crack cocaine.
The sole issue at trial was identity.
The trial judge was unable to identify the appellant from surveillance photographs but relied on the opinions of police officers who identified the appellant in court.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in relying on the officers' opinions, as they had no special knowledge or advantage over the judge in comparing the photographs to the appellant.
The in-dock identification was inherently frail, and the verdict could not be supported by the evidence.
The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.
