Accused charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. Crown’s case regarding identity rested on the accuracy of surveillance evidence (including poor quality video), with the issue being whether it was the accused who was accessing a particular vehicle.
Accused was not arrested while committing any crime. Evidence of identity was based on a “less than clear video” and the evidence of a police officer who had a “brief view” of the accused. As per Atfield, 1983 ABCA 44, the “correctness of identification must be found from evidence of circumstances in which it has been made or in other supporting evidence.” Although identity may be established through the account of a single eyewitness, “such evidence must be clear and convincing”: Mohamed, 2014 ABCA 398.
R. Snukal – Defence Counsel