|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1985 |
|
|
Marked goods in possession can justify unlawful-possession conviction, but forfeiture needs evidence; theft requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Unlawful possession of property reasonably suspected to be stolen – circumstantial evidence and admissions – marked property as basis for reasonable suspicion. * Evidence – Requirement to show accused was stopped/detained/searched applies to conveying offences, not to possession in houses. * Property forfeiture – forfeiture of money requires evidentiary link to proceeds; hearsay insufficient. * Theft by servant – prosecution must exclude lawful explanations (employee purchases); absence of records or stocktaking may leave reasonable doubt.
|
20 December 1985 |
|
|
19 December 1985 |
|
|
17 December 1985 |
| November 1985 |
|
|
Conviction upheld on credible child-witness evidence; uncorroborated testimony may suffice under s127(3) if court is satisfied.
* Criminal law – Evidence of children of tender years – Section 127(3) Law of Evidence Act allows conviction on uncorroborated child evidence after warning and satisfaction of truth.
* Child witnesses – credibility and consistency – trial court may act on uncorroborated but credible child testimony.
* Alibi – failure to establish alibi despite calling defence witnesses.
* Omission to call prosecution witnesses – failure to call 10 Cell Leader not fatal where no application made at trial.
|
27 November 1985 |
|
Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of implicated witnesses is unsafe and is quashed; appellant released.
* Criminal law – Conviction safety – Reliance on testimony of witnesses with interests or potential accomplices requires independent corroboration; such witnesses cannot corroborate one another on identification. * Evidence – Accomplice and interested witness evidence – risk of self-serving testimony and need for corroboration. * Criminal procedure – Quashing of conviction where identification and primary evidence are uncorroborated.
|
23 November 1985 |
|
Conviction quashed where night-time identification was unreliable and alibi wrongly burdened the accused.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Night-time observations – Identification must be absolutely watertight to support conviction.
* Criminal procedure – Alibi defence – Accused does not bear burden to prove an alibi; court must consider whether it raises reasonable doubt.
* Evidence – Inconsistent eyewitness accounts and lack of corroborative recovery of stolen property undermine safety of conviction.
|
21 November 1985 |
|
Convictions for receiving stolen property quashed where prosecution relied on inadmissible hearsay and improperly shifted burden of proof.
Criminal law – receiving stolen property – possession and knowledge – inadmissible hearsay where declarants not called to testify; burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; improper shifting of burden vitiates conviction; appellate revision to quash convictions.
|
20 November 1985 |
|
Theft conviction quashed where interested witnesses’ uncorroborated testimony left reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Theft – Standard of proof – Conviction cannot rest on testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration. * Evidence – Interested witnesses – Evidence from household members and employer/driver must be treated with caution. * Criminal procedure – Reasonable doubt – Alternative explanations and lack of corroboration may require acquittal. * Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act noted where property is government-owned and offender is an adult.
|
19 November 1985 |
|
Unreliable identification evidence and failure to take plea rendered the robbery conviction unsafe.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — visual identification and identification parade — reliability and necessity of in‑court testing; child witness identification; procedural irregularity — failure to take/explain plea at commencement of trial.
|
11 November 1985 |
|
|
11 November 1985 |
|
Conviction quashed where no evidence showed the appellant’s presence at the scene or knowledge that purchased goods were stolen.
* Criminal law – housebreaking and stealing – whether evidence proved appellant’s participation or knowledge of unlawfully obtained property.
* Evidence – absence of direct evidence of presence at scene; payment for transport and purchase of goods insufficient alone to prove guilt.
* Standard of proof – conviction cannot rest where prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
7 November 1985 |
|
|
7 November 1985 |
| October 1985 |
|
|
Appeal allowed because the trial magistrate lacked jurisdiction; proceedings quashed and matter ordered reheard de novo.
Jurisdiction of magistrates – statutory monetary limits on civil jurisdiction – effect of subsequent enlargement of jurisdiction – non-retroactivity; jurisdictional defect renders prior proceedings nullity; allegation of bias requires more than suspicion; remedy: rehearing de novo.
|
25 October 1985 |
|
|
8 October 1985 |
|
Appeal partly allowed: most theft and conspiracy convictions upheld; two convictions quashed for insufficient linkage and evidence.
Criminal law – conspiracy and theft of government pesticides – accomplice evidence and necessity of corroboration – distinguishing innocent/induced witnesses from accomplices – sufficiency of evidence to connect accused to co-conspirator’s acts – consideration of pre-trial detention in sentencing.
|
4 October 1985 |
| August 1985 |
|
|
A magistrate may not impose bail conditions that effectively deny release; police approval of sureties usurps judicial power.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Whether cash deposit condition that an accused cannot meet amounts to denial of bail; impropriety of requiring police approval of sureties; court to approve sureties and police to raise objections via the Public Prosecutor.
|
20 August 1985 |
|
Identification evidence held reliable; alibi and minor inconsistencies insufficient to overturn cattle theft convictions.
Criminal law – identification evidence – reliability of visual identification and effect of omissions in evidence; alibi – sufficiency to create reasonable doubt; evidentiary weight of variations in identifying marks on recovered property; distinction between stealing and receiving stolen property.
|
14 August 1985 |
|
Convictions quashed: false-document charges unsupported by handwriting evidence and meat-theft proved only to a level of reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Theft by public servant – proof of appropriation and knowledge; Criminal law – False documents – requirement to prove authorship of document alterations (handwriting evidence or familiar-witness testimony); Evidence – insufficiency where conviction rests on unproven document alterations; Admission to pay for shortages not equivalent to proof of theft.
|
9 August 1985 |
|
Conviction based on no evidence linking appellant to possession and an uncorroborated retracted co-accused statement is unsafe; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – Theft by agent (ss. 273(b), 265 Penal Code) – Insufficient evidence linking accused to carriage/possession; conviction unsafe. Evidence – Reliance on co-accused’s extra-judicial statement – retraction and alleged torture; need for corroboration. Criminal procedure – Suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal – s. 321 Criminal Procedure Code confers power on magistrate.
|
7 August 1985 |
|
Positive visual identification corroborated by witnesses and a torn shirt justified dismissal of appeal against robbery conviction.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – visual identification – credibility of complainant who knew accused – corroboration by independent witnesses and physical exhibit (torn shirt) – alibi rejected – appeal dismissed.
|
6 August 1985 |
|
Reported
Criminal Law - Failure to comply with a lawful order - Essential ingredients ofthe offence - Penal Code, section 124.
Criminal Law - Criminal trespass - Ingredients ofthe offence - Penal Code, section 299(1).
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Injunction - When interim injunction granted in criminal cases - Primary Courts Civil Procedure Rules 1974, GN 310, section 17(1)(2). |
2 August 1985 |
| July 1985 |
|
|
|
26 July 1985 |
|
A credible sole eyewitness, corroborated by the accused's adopted extra‑judicial statement, can sustain a murder conviction.
Criminal law – Evidence – Sole eyewitness identification; corroboration – whether delay and failure to call suggested corroborating witnesses fatally undermines evidence; unsworn statement adopting extra‑judicial statement can supply corroboration and support conviction.
|
22 July 1985 |
|
Recent possession alone did not prove theft where the accused’s explanation and conduct created reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Theft – Doctrine of recent possession – Recent possession not conclusive; must be considered with surrounding circumstances and accused’s explanation; accused’s conduct may raise reasonable doubt – Conviction quashed where prosecution fails to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt.
|
19 July 1985 |
|
Possession of a commonly inscribed key is insufficient to prove theft without unique linkage or lock testing.
Criminal law – Evidence – Possession of incriminating property; identification of stolen property by inscription; insufficiency of matching inscription alone; need to test key in the lock or produce a duplicate; proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
19 July 1985 |
|
Whether theft by servants was proved beyond reasonable doubt by confession, corroboration and identifying evidence.
* Criminal law – Theft by servant – proof beyond reasonable doubt; confession and corroboration; identification of stolen property; credibility of witnesses; presence of watchman not dispositive.
|
11 July 1985 |
|
|
9 July 1985 |
|
Appeal against conviction for unlawful possession dismissed; exhibits forfeited to the State, empty cartridges destroyed, arrow returned to owner.
* Criminal law – unlawful possession of offensive weapon – conviction upheld where weapon with live ammunition found on person immediately after hostile incident. * Evidence – identification and minor inconsistencies – discrepancies in peripheral details do not vitiate conviction where central facts are corroborated. * Procedure – disposal of exhibits – appellate court may order forfeiture or return where trial court failed to do so.
|
9 July 1985 |
|
Appellant held criminally liable for unexplained shortage of entrusted village funds; conviction and compensation upheld; sentencing questioned.
Criminal law – theft by servant – duty to account for entrusted funds; evidence of unexplained cash shortage supports theft conviction; admissibility of confession; delay in prosecution not a bar; sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act may apply to corporate village bodies and sentence adequacy must be considered.
|
2 July 1985 |
| June 1985 |
|
|
Repeated litigation over land already determined by earlier courts and the Minister was an abuse of process; appeal dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – res judicata and abuse of process – repeated litigation on same subject matter after determinations by Primary Court, Land Tribunal and Minister of Lands.
* Land law – boundary disputes – prior adjudications by local courts and administrative authorities binding on subsequent proceedings.
* Evidence – admissions and witness testimony supporting finding of encroachment.
|
28 June 1985 |
|
|
26 June 1985 |
|
Visual identification under moonlight and prior acquaintance upheld convictions for robbery with violence.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Visual identification at night – moonlight, multiple sightings and prior acquaintance as factors supporting reliable identification – conviction upheld.
|
26 June 1985 |
|
Appeal against criminal trespass conviction dismissed where prosecution proved intent to annoy and ownership; sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – Criminal trespass (s.299(1)(a)) – Element of intent to intimidate or annoy – intent may be inferred from conduct (unauthorised building, ignoring warnings, refusing conciliation). * Property/defence of right – claim of ownership must be supported by evidence; failure to call key witnesses or produce documents weakens defence. * Sentence – appellate court will not disturb sentence found reasonable by trial court.
|
26 June 1985 |
|
Failure to frame issues and improper ex parte proceedings that ignored recorded defence evidence amounted to a mistrial.
Civil procedure — Failure to frame issues (Order XIV r.1(5)) — Irregular ex parte proceedings (Order IX r.6(1)(ii)) — Recorded defence evidence must not be ignored — Mistrial and trial de novo ordered.
|
25 June 1985 |
|
|
25 June 1985 |
|
An admission accompanied by factual recital can constitute an unequivocal guilty plea to robbery with violence, and convictions, sentence and compensation were confirmed.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – sufficiency of a plea and recital of facts – whether plea must explicitly admit each ingredient of the offence. * Criminal procedure – Conviction and sentence – irregularity of sentencing without formal conviction and curability. * Criminal law – Robbery with violence – effect of common intention on proof of who inflicted injury. * Compensation – award for personal injury where accused acted in concert.
|
22 June 1985 |
| May 1985 |
|
|
|
29 May 1985 |
|
Conviction quashed where audit and missing records failed to prove theft by servant beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – theft by servant – sufficiency of evidence – reliance on auditor’s report based on accused’s own books – non-production of stock/sales book – failure to call village accountant – proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
13 May 1985 |
|
Conviction for robbery quashed where sole complainant’s inconsistent testimony failed to exclude reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Appeal – Standard of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where sole complainant’s inconsistent or unexplained evidence raises doubt, conviction will be quashed.
|
3 May 1985 |
|
|
3 May 1985 |
| April 1985 |
|
|
|
30 April 1985 |
|
|
29 April 1985 |
|
Conviction upheld on credible witness testimony and admission; sentence reduced to two years and refund order confirmed.
Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence – conviction upheld where multiple eyewitnesses and accused’s admission support finding of misappropriation; Sentencing – excessive sentence reduced having regard to youth and first-offender status; Restitution – order to refund amount confirmed.
|
15 April 1985 |
| March 1985 |
|
|
Duplicitous charge did not vitiate conviction; recent possession and unique identification supported theft conviction and three‑year sentence.
Criminal law – duplicity of charge (store‑breaking and stealing in one count) – prejudice requirement for quashing; Identification of stolen property – unique items and recent possession; Recent possession doctrine – evidential value of contemporaneous possession; Sentencing – mandatory minimum sentences and offences by public servants.
|
29 March 1985 |
|
|
22 March 1985 |
|
|
21 March 1985 |
|
Convictions quashed where circumstantial evidence did not prove appellants' knowledge or participation beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – Test: whether the facts irresistibly point to guilt and exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence. * Mens rea – Knowledge/participation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; presence with a co-conspirator and locked conveyance insufficient alone. * Defence of innocent agent/porter – where prosecution proof permits reasonable explanation of innocence conviction unsustainable. * Credibility/lies – inconsistencies do not replace prosecution's burden of proof.
|
15 March 1985 |
|
|
6 March 1985 |
| February 1985 |
|
|
Conviction for stealing by agent overturned where prosecution failed to prove conversion beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Stealing by agent – Requirement to prove conversion of entrusted property to agent’s own use beyond reasonable doubt; documentary agency agreement supports agency finding but does not substitute for proof of conversion. * Evidence – Insufficient evidence as to disposal of entrusted goods and lack of linkage to accused defeats conviction. * Procedure – Conviction cannot stand where essential factual link to accused’s criminality is unproved, even if co-accused absconds.
|
22 February 1985 |
|
An uncorroborated admission and lies cannot sustain conviction; circumstantial proof must exclude reasonable hypotheses.
Criminal law – Theft by public servant – Identity of stolen property – Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence – Alleged admissions – Need for corroboration where witness credibility or bias is in issue – Lies by accused not substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
15 February 1985 |