Murray-Aynsley CJ:

The facts in this case were rather unusual.Someone was seen by a detective taking the bicycle of the complainant.The thief was not caught. A few days later the detective was shown 200 photographs from which he picked out one of the appellant.The appellant was later arrested in Kuala Lumpur and subsequently identified by the detective more than three months after the offence.There was absolutely no other evidence against the appellant.The procedure adopted is usual and perfectly legitimate, but the effect of a subsequent identification is thereby weakened.In the circumstances I did not consider that the charge was sufficiently proved.

Appeal allowed.