Anthony Honeysett was convicted of armed robbery even though the only visible bit of the well-disguised robber was a patch of skin between sleeve and glove.
Now the High Court says that identification, based on CCTV imagery, was just too questionable.
That means Honeysett will face a fresh trial.
It all started in September 2008 when three robbers - armed with a pink-handled hammer and other weapons - held up a suburban Sydney pub, escaping with their loot in an Audi RS4.
All three were disguised and witness descriptions were vague. The robber referred to as "offender one" was described as "not like a white looking guy" and possibly Indian.
However the robbery was recorded on closed circuit television, with offender one revealing a small area of skin between sleeve and glove.
Honeysett, an Aboriginal man, was charged.
At his trial in the NSW District Court in 2011, the prosecution called expert evidence from anatomist Professor Maciej Henneberg who testified of anatomical similarities.
That was based on CCTV footage of the robbery and images of Honeysett taken in police custody.
High Court judges held his opinion was not based wholly or substantially on his knowledge of anatomy.
Rather it was based on his subjective impressions of the CCTV images and should never have been allowed into evidence.
"Professor Henneberg's evidence gave the unwarranted appearance of science to the prosecution case," judges said in their decision on Wednesday.
Share
