The accused, a young person, was charged with robbery and possession of stolen property.
The sole issue was identification.
The complainant and his friends testified that they were robbed of an iPhone in a distinctive white case with a Hindu God image.
They followed the suspect to an apartment building where police arrested the accused.
The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, video surveillance, and the identification of the accused as he was escorted from the building in handcuffs.
The court found the complainant and his friends credible but determined that the identification evidence was unreliable due to discrepancies in physical descriptions, the accused wearing different clothing, and the problematic nature of in-dock identification while in police custody.
Critical evidence—the iPhone case, identification of the specific apartment, and the yellow blanket and red purse—was not properly presented.
The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding identification.
