Charles Isaboke v. R., Crim. App. 298-A-69, 30/1/70; Platt J.
The appellant was convicted of hunting a game animal without a licence c/ss 12(1) and 53(1) (e) (ii) of the Fauna Conservation Ordinance Cap. 302. The charge concerned a leg of a “
Held: “The main issue on the appeal was whether the inference drawn was certain beyond reasonable probable doubt. It is of course familiar law that if the prosecution seeks to rely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt must be irresistible and incompatible with innocence. In the instant case, even if the learned Magistrate disbelieved the defence, all that was proved was possession of a leg of a waterbuck. Such possession could be accounted for either by purchase of receipt as well by hunting the animal. I agree with the learned State Attorney that the evidence did not conclusively point to the fact that the appellant had hunted the animal, and it seems to me that the absence of evidence as to how the appellant had hunted it, was not immaterial but indeed one of the facts which left open a possible inference of innocence.” Appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.