Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Paulo s/o Joseph v. R., Crim. App. 108-A-67, 28/8/67,



Paulo s/o Joseph v. R., Crim. App. 108-A-67, 28/8/67,

Appellant and his co-accused were charged with robbery with violence. There was evidence that the complainant had picked out accused from an identification parade after he had been told to “point out the person who attacked him if he was on the pared.” At a second identification parade, in which the

The co-accused and several other suspects were placed among nine persons, the complainant was in doubt as to the identification of the second accused who was therefore acquitted.

            Held: The officer conducting a parade should not inform a witness that a suspect is certainly on the parade. However, the statement by the officer at the first parade did not violate this rule. The Court stated, obiter: The second parade violated the requirement that an accused person ought to be placed among at least eight other persons; it is not satisfactory that several suspects be placed amongst nine persons. [Citing R. v. Mwango s/o Manaa, (1936) 3 E.A.C.A. 29] However, the error was harm-less because the co-accused was acquitted.

 

Post a Comment

0 Comments