The appellants challenged an order dismissing their application to quash committals to stand trial arising from a bank robbery prosecution based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The Court of Appeal applied the strict test governing review of a committal and held there was no scintilla of evidence on the element of identity.
The purported clothing nexus between one appellant and one robber failed because the descriptions contained a material dissimilarity, leaving only resemblance, suspicion, and speculation.
The appeal was allowed and the orders to stand trial were quashed on all charges.
