Ad Code

Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Sangwa Ngedelele v. R., Crim. App. 198-M-68, 31/5/68, Seaton J.



Sangwa Ngedelele v. R., Crim. App. 198-M-68, 31/5/68, Seaton J.

Accused was convicted of stealing upon evidence that he had misappropriated funds which he had collected, purportedly in payment of local rates. There was introduced into evidence a statement which accused made to a police officer. In this statement he admitted having received the money. He further stated that he had not returned the money and asked for time in which to refund it. The prosecution conceded that the last portion of the statement was inadmissible but contended that the first portion was properly introduced.

            Held: (1) A confession to a police officer is inadmissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act, but a mere admission is admissible. “A confession is a direct acknowledgment of guilt on the part of the accused … (A)n admission … is a statement by the accused, direct or implied of facts pertinent to the issue and tending in connexion with proof of other facts to prove his guilt, but of itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction.” [Quoting Gopa s/o Gidamebanya v. Reg., (1953) 20 E.A.C.A. 318 and authorities cited therein]. (2) In the circumstances of this case, it is not permissible to separate the first portion of the statement from the latter in order to admit part of the statement from the latter in order to admit part of the statement; the prohibition of section 27 of of the Evidence Act extends to both portions and the entire statement was inadmissible. Conviction quashed because of this misdirection and for insufficient evidence. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments