The court considered whether the trial judge erroneosly
convicted the appellant on evidence of a sole identifying
witness that was full of discrepancies. The court held that if
a sole identifying witness was found to be deliberately
lying on part of the case, great care had to be taken in
considering whether the false part of the testimony affected
his entire evidence or could be legitimately excluded from
the rest of his evidence. The court was satisfied that the

sole witness’ false testimony wasn’t supported by any other
evidence. The court accordingly concluded that the
appellant was erroneously convicted.