JUDGMENT
Introduction
- The Court of Appeal examined the constitutionality of the impugned provisions and held that the limitation was not shown to be necessary and proportionate.
- The accused denied the charge and the matter proceeded to full hearing.
Background
- The prosecution called five witnesses, including the complainant, an investigating officer and a forensic analyst. The defence called two witnesses.
- The court has considered the evidence, the submissions of counsel on both sides and the authorities cited, and sets out its findings below.
Analysis
- The first question is whether the evidence adduced meets the required standard. The court has reminded itself that the burden rests on the party who asserts, and that it does not shift.
- On the second question, the court finds that the evidence of identification was clear, consistent and made in conditions favourable to correct identification.