Saidi Ali v. R., Crim. App. 849-M-66; 10/3/67; Platt, J.

Saidi Ali v. R., Crim. App. 849-M-66; 10/3/67; Platt, J.

Accused was convicted of unlawful possession of diamonds Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance, Cap. 129, s. 3(1). His alleged accomplice, in the presence of accused, attempted to sell some diamonds to a third party, who was a police informed. The three were together on two occasions on which the sale was negotiated, the accomplice being in possession of the diamonds. The accused was not present for the exchange of diamonds for money, at which time  the accomplice was arrested. The accomplice testified that he had told the informer, in the presence of the accused, that the accused was the owner of the diamonds. The accused denied this, as did the informer. The testimony of the accomplice differed in other respects with that of the informer and with an unsworn statement by the accused.

            Held(1)”(1) t would not be safe” to accept the accomplice’s testimony, without “material corroboration,” solely because of his impressive demeanor. “The first test was to see whether (his story) was corroborated by other independent an material evidence.” (2) To convict the accused, it would be necessary participated in the negotiations in such a way that it could be said that he was in joint possession of the diamonds ….” Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside.