Pike CJ (Borneo):

The appellant has appealed against his conviction and sentence for murder.

We are indebted to Counsel for the appellant and to Counsel for the prosecution for their assistance. It has seemed to us that there is really only one point in this case which deserves the careful consideration of the Court, and that is the question of the evidence of identification of the accused as the person alleged to be at the bridge on the 28 December.

If the accused had been identified at an identification parade by the witness, Simon Liew, without that witness having been first afforded the opportunity of seeing the accused, we feel that there might well be sufficient evidence to justify the conviction. The onus on the prosecution when the evidence is of a circumstantial nature is a very heavy one and that evidence must point irresistibly to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. If there are gaps in it then it is not sufficient. The fact that Simon Liew was invited to the police station to identify the accused not only in our opinion vitiates the subsequent identification at the parade, but raises the most grave doubts as to the whole of his evidence of identificat