Evidence that a person looked 'similar to' or 'like' the offender, while insufficient standing alone to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt, is admissible as circumstantial identification evidence that may, with other evidence, point to the accused as the offender. A reduction from the statutory non-parole ratio of 75% to 66% on account of special circumstances is substantial, not marginal, and a finding of special circumstances does not necessarily require any variation to the statutory ratio.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.