Sopinka J.
Sopinka J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right. The trial judge properly charged the jury with respect to the special need for caution in considering identification evidence. In dealing with the circumstances surrounding the identification, the trial judge referred to recognition as a factor. In view of the express caution with respect to acceptance of identification evidence generally, failure to specifically repeat the warning with respect to recognition did not constitute an error in this case. With respect to the specific weaknesses in the evidence relied on by the appellant we are of the view that the charge was adequate. In our view, in all the circumstances, the jury was sufficiently alerted to these weaknesses.
The appeal is dismissed.