Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Peter s/o Kasembe v. R., Crim. App. 454-D-67, 27/9/67, Georges C. J.



Peter s/o Kasembe v. R., Crim. App. 454-D-67, 27/9/67, Georges C. J.

Accused was convicted of a corrupt transaction contrary to section 3(1)(3) of the Corruption Ordinance, Cap. 400. As a part of a police trap, a police officer sought work from accused, who was the personnel manager of a textile factory. Accused demanded money for performing this favour, and the money was allegedly given to accused by an intermediary named Abdullah during a meeting at the accused ‘s house. Other police officers then entered the house and the money was found under a table cloth in the room in which the meeting took place.

            Held: (1) Abdullah was an accomplice, and the trial court erred in failing to consider the danger of accepting such evidence unless it is corroborated. (2) The police decoy who took part in the trap should not be treated as an accomplice, and his testimony need not be corroborated as a matter of law. However, he is not a disinterested witness, and his evidence must be examined closely.” (T)hought corroboration would not be required as a matter of law, it would hardly ever be safe in practice to convict unless there was corroboration.” (3) The finding of the notes under the table cloth does not provide corroboration since they were not found on the person of the accused and could have been placed under the table cloth by one of those taking part in the trap. Conviction set aside for insufficient evidence.

Post a Comment

0 Comments