Simiyon Robinson vs. The Hon. Attorney General – CA/HCC/0352/2019-2024

In the case between the Accused-Appellant and the Hon. Attorney General, the court examined whether the trial judge erred in evaluating evidence relating to the accused’s indictment for possession and trafficking of heroin and cannabis. The determination emphasized that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and the creation of doubt by the defence must be assessed in the context of the entire evidence. Judicial intervention under Section 165 of the Evidence Ordinance and its permissible limits were considered, referring to established legal standards and case law. It was concluded that the prosecution’s case was proven beyond reasonable doubt, upholding the conviction and sentence, and reaffirming the requirement for judicial neutrality and the primacy of clear, unwavering pros