|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1972 |
|
|
|
29 December 1972 |
|
Conviction for possession of suspected stolen property quashed where statutory charging requirements and reasonable-suspicion were not met.
* Criminal law – Unlawful possession of suspected stolen property – Section 312 (as amended by Act No. 26 of 1971) – statutory prerequisites for charge under subsections (a) and (b).
* Criminal procedure – Requirement that charging/detaining officer have requisite authority/rank when relying on s.312(b).
* Evidence – Mere possession of an expensive item does not alone amount to reasonable suspicion; prosecution must rebut explanations.
|
26 December 1972 |
|
Uncorroborated possession evidence linking a third party to stolen goods is insufficient to sustain an appellant’s conviction.
Criminal law – Conviction safety – Possession of recently stolen goods by a third party; uncorroborated allegation of purchase from accused insufficient to convict; appellate quashing of unsafe conviction.
|
26 December 1972 |
|
Whether the appellant’s conduct amounted to burglary or only attempted burglary; conviction reduced to attempted burglary.
* Criminal law – Burglary – Breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to steal – Where evidence establishes only unsuccessful entry or interruption, offence may be attempted burglary. * Appeal – Substitution of conviction – Appellate court may set aside conviction for substantive offence and substitute conviction for attempt where facts support only attempt. * Sentencing – Antecedent convictions remain operative despite variation of substantive conviction.
|
15 December 1972 |
|
An unequivocal admission after prosecution evidence amounts to a guilty plea, convictions upheld; sentences reduced to concurrent 7 and 5 years.
* Criminal law – guilty plea – post‑evidence admissions amounting to unequivocal guilty pleas; appeal against conviction barred where plea is clear; sentencing – robbery with violence and cattle theft – appellate reduction to concurrent terms (7 and 5 years).
|
15 December 1972 |
|
Appeal against conviction dismissed; five‑year mandatory minimum sentence for cattle theft under s.5(c) restored.
* Criminal law – cattle theft – mandatory minimum sentence – s.5(c) Minimum Sentences Act; * Statutory interpretation – relationship between s.4 and s.5(a)/(c) – legislative intent favors s.5(c) five‑year minimum for cattle theft; * Appeal – conviction upheld where possession and conduct supported inference of theft.
|
1 December 1972 |
|
Appellate court reduced an excessive sentence for robbery with violence, allowing appeal against sentence and substituting seven years imprisonment.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Sentence review on appeal – Appellate court may reduce an unduly excessive sentence by taking into account mitigating factors such as first offender status and prospects for rehabilitation.
|
1 December 1972 |
|
Appeal dismissed: evidence proved false mileage claims and appellant had opportunity but did not recall witnesses.
Criminal law – Obtaining money by false pretences – proof of false claim and knowledge; Criminal procedure – change of trial magistrate – right to recall witnesses; Sentence – appellate review of sentence reasonableness.
|
1 December 1972 |
|
Appellant’s conviction and sentence for cheating upheld; conviction of third accused quashed for insufficient evidence under revisional powers.
Criminal law – Cheating – Evaluation of evidence and identity by eyewitnesses – Sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction; Sentence – Whether excessive; Revisional jurisdiction – Quashing unsafe convictions of non‑appealing accused.
|
1 December 1972 |
|
Documentary and witness evidence upheld conviction for theft by a public servant; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Theft by a public servant – conviction based on witness testimony corroborated by documentary evidence.
* Evidence – Documentary corroboration and absenteeism as indicia of guilt.
* Procedure – Lawful seizure/opening of cash box after reasonable delay; not a trick undermining evidence.
|
1 December 1972 |
| November 1972 |
|
|
|
27 November 1972 |
|
An appeal cannot be fairly determined without the lower court record; matter remitted for trial de novo.
Criminal appeal – absence of trial record – record destroyed by fire – fairness of hearing appeal without record – remedy is trial de novo.
|
27 November 1972 |
|
Appeal remitted for trial de novo where the trial record was incomplete and appeal could not be fairly heard.
Criminal appeal — incomplete or defective trial record — appellate court unable to determine appeal — remittal for trial de novo.
|
27 November 1972 |
|
Identification based on a distinctive wound explained by the accused can raise reasonable doubt, making the conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Distinctive mark (stitched wound) used to identify accused; the accused’s plausible explanation for the mark can raise reasonable doubt and render conviction unsafe; appellate review where trial court fails to consider alternative explanation for identifying feature.
|
24 November 1972 |
|
Appellate court quashed robbery conviction where identification by a forehead wound and trial omissions raised reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Identification evidence – Witness identified accused by a distinctive stitched wound – Trial court’s failure to consider exculpatory facts – Appellate review of safety of conviction – Reasonable doubt.
|
24 November 1972 |
|
Identification and circumstantial evidence (blood marks) upheld conviction for robbery with violence; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Identification evidence – Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence (blood marks and complainant’s identification) – Appeal against factual findings and sentence.
|
24 November 1972 |
|
Appellate court upheld robbery conviction based on victim identification and blood marks supporting the magistrate's factual findings.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence; Identification evidence; Circumstantial evidence – blood marks at scene; Witness testimony; Appellate review – deference to magistrate's findings of fact.
|
24 November 1972 |
|
Failure to produce a handwriting expert report can invalidate an applicant's forgery convictions, while false-pretense convictions may still stand.
Criminal law – Forgery – Necessity and weight of expert handwriting evidence; failure to produce expert report may undermine lay identification. Criminal law – False pretences – Representing oneself as authorised to collect cheques establishes offence where cheques are obtained on that representation. Evidence – Circumstantial evidence and possession of documents – insufficient without stronger proof of authorship or receipt.
|
24 November 1972 |
|
Appellate court upholds robbery conviction: identification sufficient; trial court's credibility findings affirmed; sentence reasonable.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Sufficiency of evidence – Identification – Credibility of prosecution witnesses – Appellate deference to trial court's factual findings – Sentence not excessive.
|
17 November 1972 |
|
Appeal raises whether identification, delayed statement and medical evidence sufficiently proved robbery with violence.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Identification evidence – Reliance on in-court and at-scene identification made shortly after victim’s partial recovery. * Evidence – Effect of delay in making police statement on credibility and weight of testimony. * Criminal procedure – Sufficiency of medical and circumstantial evidence to prove assault accompanying robbery.
|
17 November 1972 |
|
Appellate court increases an unduly lenient sentence for unlawful possession of valuable government trophies.
Criminal law – Unlawful possession of government trophies (ivory tusks) – Sentencing – Mitigating circumstances considered but insufficient – appellate increase of unduly lenient sentence – substitution of fine with default imprisonment.
|
15 November 1972 |
|
Conviction for giving false information upheld; seven-month sentence reduced to three months as excessive.
* Criminal law – Offence of giving false information to a person in public service – Conviction upheld where evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Sentencing – Appellate reduction of sentence – Seven months' imprisonment found excessive and reduced to three months.
|
14 November 1972 |
|
|
10 November 1972 |
|
Conviction for stealing upheld, but case remitted to trial court to record special circumstances due to unclear value of property.
* Criminal law – Theft – Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction – Credibility of eyewitnesses. * Sentencing – Proof of value of stolen property relevant to sentence classification – need to record special circumstances. * Procedure – Remittal to trial court to take steps necessary for sentencing determination.
|
9 November 1972 |
|
Appellants' criminal convictions quashed, sentences set aside and appellants ordered released forthwith.
* Criminal appeal – convictions quashed – sentences set aside – appellants ordered released forthwith.
|
9 November 1972 |
|
The appellant’s housebreaking conviction quashed for lack of proof of breaking; substituted conviction under s.295 for entry with intent to steal.
Criminal law – housebreaking (s.294) – breaking is an essential element; absence of evidence of breaking – lesser included offence: entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony (s.295) – appellate power under s.181(1) to substitute conviction.
|
3 November 1972 |
|
Appeal against theft conviction dismissed; identification evidence and trial court findings upheld.
Criminal law – Theft – Sufficiency of evidence – Identification evidence – Appellate review of trial court’s factual findings and conduct of trial.
|
2 November 1972 |
| October 1972 |
|
|
An appellate court quashed the applicant's convictions where the trial record was destroyed, preventing review and making retrial unjust.
Criminal procedure – Missing or destroyed trial record – Appellate review impossible without record – Remedy: quash convictions rather than order retrial where retrial would be unjust.
|
25 October 1972 |
|
Prosecution must prove witness-signed prior statements and prove theft beyond reasonable doubt; failure on either undermines conviction.
* Criminal law – Theft by public servant – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent versions must resolve in favour of accused when doubt remains. * Evidence – Use of prior statements and treating witnesses as hostile – prior statements relied upon must be proved to have been signed by the witness; failure to lay foundation precludes treating witness as hostile. * Appeal – Procedural irregularities do not necessarily vitiate conviction where substantive evidence remains credible.
|
6 October 1972 |
|
Lost trial records justify quashing convictions for those who've served sentences, but retrials ordered where little sentence remains.
* Criminal procedure – Loss of trial records by fire – prejudice to appellate review – adequacy of petitions of appeal as substitute for notes of evidence. * Remedies – retrial vs quashing conviction where records lost. * Consideration of whether appellants have served sentences when deciding remedy. * Precedents: R v Abdi May; Haiderali Lakhoo Zaveri.
|
6 October 1972 |
|
Appeal allowed: convictions for theft quashed where identification of recovered property was unreliable and evidence insufficient.
Criminal law – Theft – Identification of recovered stolen property – Proof of ownership – Initials alone insufficient for reliable identification – Convictions quashed for inadequate evidence.
|
6 October 1972 |
|
Appeal allowed: identifications and proof of breaking/ownership were unsafe, convictions quashed and appellants released.
* Criminal law – Identification of accused – Night-time observation of fleeing persons and subsequent police-custody identification unsafe if no prior description given.
* Criminal law – Burglary – Essential element of breaking must be established by evidence of how entry was effected.
* Criminal law – Stolen property – Complainant must show distinctive marks/features to identify goods as his for conviction.
* Criminal procedure – Burden of proof – Convictions unsafe where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to identification and evidential gaps.
|
4 October 1972 |
| September 1972 |
|
|
A voluntary police statement containing an exculpatory explanation is not necessarily a confession; misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe.
* Evidence — statements to police — distinction between confession and exculpatory statement — admissibility under Evidence Act ss 27–28.
* Criminal law — receiving stolen property — recent possession with exculpatory explanation.
* Criminal procedure — misdirection on facts and non-direction on law renders conviction unsafe.
|
29 September 1972 |
|
The appellate court dismissed the applicant's appeal, upholding convictions as the trial magistrate's credibility findings were reasonable.
Criminal law – appeal against conviction – fraudulent false accounting; attempt to steal by a clerk/servant; destroying evidence – credibility of witnesses – corroboration by police – appellate deference to trial magistrate's findings of fact.
|
29 September 1972 |
|
Court granted a limited extension of applicants' departure deadline pending travel vouchers, balancing fairness and state interest.
* Immigration law – departure orders imposed on convicted non‑nationals – court’s discretion to modify time for leaving the country. * Administrative delay in obtaining travel vouchers – humanitarian and fairness considerations in extending departure deadlines. * Balancing state interest in removal against appellants’ inability to obtain documents through no fault of their own.
|
26 September 1972 |
|
Court varied deportation order, granting limited extension to obtain travel vouchers on humanitarian and practical grounds.
Immigration — Order to leave — Variation of deportation order — Court’s discretion to extend departure period where applicants await travel documents; humanitarian and practical considerations; balancing State interest and individual rights.
|
26 September 1972 |
|
Acquittal upheld because prosecution failed to strictly identify recovered cattle as the complainant’s stolen animals.
* Criminal law – cattle theft – essential requirement of strict and satisfactory identification of recovered animals as those stolen. * Criminal Procedure – section 171 – adequacy of trial magistrate’s written judgment and findings. * Evidence – burden of proof and reasonable doubt where identification is inconclusive.
|
26 September 1972 |
|
Lack of strict identification of alleged stolen cattle justified acquittal; magistrate’s concise reasons complied with s.171 CPC.
Criminal appeal — acquittal — compliance with section 171 Criminal Procedure Code — identification of stolen property in cattle theft — requirement of strict and satisfactory proof of ownership and special marks.
|
26 September 1972 |
|
Forfeiture under the Fauna Conservation Ordinance is discretionary; appellate court increased respondent's fine for unlawful possession of trophies.
* Fauna Conservation Ordinance – unlawful possession of Government trophies – quantity of trophies relevant to sentence severity.
* Sentencing – manifest inadequacy – appellate variation of fine where original sentence is insufficient.
* Forfeiture – statutory forfeiture of vehicle involved in offence is discretionary, not mandatory; court need not give reasons for declining forfeiture.
* Appeal – new factual explanations raised for first time on appeal are ordinarily not accepted.
|
22 September 1972 |
|
|
20 September 1972 |
|
Appeal allowed for destroying-evidence charge (conviction quashed); theft conviction upheld, sentence not manifestly excessive.
* Criminal law — Appeal — Points of appeal not supported by trial record inadmissible on appeal; record presumed correct where silent.
* Evidence — Absence of cross-examination may weaken reliance on prosecution witness statements.
* Criminal law — Destroying evidence — Refusal to produce an item (a book) does not necessarily prove destruction; conviction quashed where evidence insufficient.
* Criminal law — Theft — Conviction and sentence upheld; sentence not manifestly excessive.
|
15 September 1972 |
|
Convictions for operating a public service vehicle with defective brakes/steering upheld; default imprisonment reduced to two months under Act No.13 of 1912.
* Traffic law – offences – permitting/using a motor vehicle with defective brakes or steering; duty to maintain public service vehicle in good repair – exposure of public to danger justifies conviction.
* Sentencing – fines with alternative imprisonment – application of Act No. 13 of 1912 limiting alternative imprisonment to two months where fine does not exceed statutory threshold; variation of default term.
|
12 September 1972 |
|
Appellants' robbery convictions quashed due to material contradictions in prosecution evidence and unsafe trial evaluation.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Evaluation of witness testimony – Material contradictions in prosecution evidence – Reasonable doubt – Unsafe conviction – Appellate intervention.
|
11 September 1972 |
|
|
8 September 1972 |
|
|
8 September 1972 |
|
A public officer’s inconsistent explanations and failure to produce transfer documents justify upholding convictions for theft of public funds.
* Criminal law – Theft by public officer – Duty to account for public funds – Absence of bank slips or letters of transfer – Inconsistent explanations and lack of documentary proof justify upholding conviction.
|
8 September 1972 |
|
Appellants' robbery-with-violence convictions upheld where eyewitness testimony and recovered exhibits corroborated the complainant.
Robbery with violence – credibility of complainant and eyewitness – identification and recovery of stolen items as corroboration – rejection of alibi/consensual relationship defence – appeal against conviction and minimum sentence dismissed.
|
8 September 1972 |
|
Concurrent default imprisonment unlawful; forgery fine increased, other traffic fines upheld.
Criminal procedure – legality of directing default imprisonment to run concurrently – proviso to section 36 Penal Code; Traffic offences – adequacy of prosecutorial factual particulars when accepting guilty pleas; Sentencing – appellate review of lenient fines; Forgery (use of wrong number plate) – sentence enhancement where fine manifestly inadequate.
|
8 September 1972 |
|
Conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony quashed for lack of corroboration and improper alibi assessment.
Criminal law – store-breaking and stealing; accomplice evidence – need for corroboration; s.142 Evidence Act – uncorroborated testimony requires exceptional circumstances; alibi assessment – trial magistrate must properly consider defence evidence; failure to call available corroborating witnesses undermines conviction.
|
1 September 1972 |
|
|
1 September 1972 |