JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant was convicted of robbery contrary to
section 296(1) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 6 years
imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane, followed by police
supervision for 5 years. His appeal to the superior court
against both conviction and sentence was summarily rejected
under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has
now appealed to this court against this rejection.
The only issue of law which could have arisen in any
appeal would have been the issue of identification on which
there is more than ample evidence to prove that the appellant was one of the assailants who attacked the complainant's wife and stole his radio. Although the radio was never recovered, the appellant and the second robber were traced through their foot marks to the house where they were apprehended.
In the end we are satisfied that the evidence in this
case is sufficient to support the conviction and there is no
material in the circumstances of the case which coul…