A man has been found not guilty after a judge decided she couldn't be sure he was the one who stole a car in 2022.
Kai Shen Hung was accused of stealing a Subaru vehicle in Richmond on March 1, 2022 and appeared in person at Richmond Provincial Court on Monday morning to hear his fate.
Richmond Provincial Court judge Diana Vandor described the crime as "shockingly brazen," as the car was stolen one minute after the victim parked it on the side of the road to collect vegetables and herbs for dinner.
The theft was captured on video.
Vandor found the main issue of the case to be identification as the prosecution only presented circumstantial evidence of a latent fingerprint on the inside door handle on the driver's side, allegedly linking Hung to the crime.
She didn't believe Hung's explanation that his fingerprint had ended up on the stolen car because he "must have touched the door handle when he worked at a car dealership the previous year."
Hung's evidence was "self-serving and inconsistent," said Vandor, because he didn't recall what he did on the date of the theft and he didn't remember what would have brought him in contact with the car, apart from his previous employment.
"However, his evidence is inconsistent on when he worked there and what he did," she explained, referencing Hung's claims that he worked in car sales at the dealership in 2022 and other types of roles in 2020 and 2021.
"By his own admission, Mr. Hung has no memory of servicing that specific Subaru."
Hung also admitted he didn't work at the dealership where the victim bought his car.
Vandor found Hung's explanation for his fingerprint to be "speculative and fanciful" as well, because it was "devoid of detail and specificity."
Quality of evidence and identification failed to overturn presumption of innocence: Judge
Despite Vandor's doubts about Hung's defence, she ultimately found him not guilty of the crime.
Vandor noted the stolen car was found a few hours later and a latent fingerprint matching Hung's left index finger was found on the interior of the door on the driver's side.
She noted the prosecution's expert found Hung's fingerprint wasn't disturbed in any way except for the expert's own use of tape during examination, and there was no fingerprint under Hung's.
The court heard from the expert that the door handle was a high-contact area and the victim explained the door had to be opened by pulling back the handle "like a traditional car."
The victim told the court he shared the car with his wife for regular commuting and, although the car was taken into the Subaru dealership for an oil change, he didn't expect them to use the inside of the car.
He took the car in for maintenance twice a year.
However, the question remained why the victim's print was not under Hung's despite getting out of the car shortly before the theft.
Vandor said the video was "not good enough" to tell whether the suspect was wearing gloves when they stole the car nor did it show whether the victim was wearing gloves at the time.
"So ultimately, the circumstantial evidence leads me to the conclusion that Mr. Hung probably stole this car," said Vandor.
"However, I am not sure that he stole this car because the circumstantial evidence, when viewed logically, in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than guilt.
"The quality of the evidence and identification in this case is incapable of displacing a presumption of innocence."
Got an opinion on this story or any others in Richmond? Send us a letter or email your thoughts or story tips to [email protected].
