–
KWARTIE KWASHIE
V.
THE KING
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
5TH DAY OF JUNE, 1950
2PLR/1950/22 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1950/22 (WACA)
(1950) XIII WACA P. 86
LEX (1950) – XIII WACA 86
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
BLACKALL, P.
SMITH, AG. C.J. (GOLD COAST)
LEWEY, J.A.
–
BETWEEN:
KWARTIE KWASHIE – Appellant
AND
THE KING – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Accra: W.A.C.A. CR. APP. 15/50
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Charge of housebreaking and stealing – Recent possession of property stolen during housebreaking – Conviction for receiving stolen property – Power of Court to convict for the offences charged.
–
CASE SUMMARY
This was an application for leave to appeal against a conviction for receiving stolen property. The evidence established that the complainant left her house about 5 p.m and on her return at 7 p.m found her room had been broken into and a number of articles stolen, which were found in possession of the appellant about 6.30 p.m. on the same day.
The trial Judge directed the assessors that as there was no evidence that the appellant was in the vicinity of the room, he should not be convicted of housebreaking, but only of receiving stolen property.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (Application refused) that:
1. The direction of the Judge was wrong, and that it is a presumption of fact, and not an implication of law, from evidence of recent possession of stolen property unaccounted for, whether the offences of housebreaking and stealing or the offence of receiving had been committed.
2. It was open to the trial Court in the circumstances of this case to convict of housebreaking and stealing. The misdirection had occasioned no injustice and the application was refused.
Cases referred to:
(1) Rex v. Langmead, 9 Cox C.L.T. 464.
(2) Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. and Ald., 147.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following judgment was delivered:
BLACKALL, P.
This is an application for leave to appeal against a conviction for receiving stolen property. The evidence was that a certain seamstress left her house at 5 o’clock in the evening and on her return at 7 o’clock she found her clothes, gramophone and other articles stolen. About half-past six the same evening the accused was found carrying a large bundle and was challenged by the police. He started to run away, but was caught and all the stolen articles were found in the bundle.
The trial Judge directed the assessors that as there was no evidence that the accused was in the vicinity of the room, he should not be convicted of housebreaking but only of receiving stolen property. With due deference to the learned Judge we are unable to agree with that direction. It is a presumption of fact, and not an implication of law, from evidence of recent possession of stolen property unaccounted for, whether the offence of stealing or receiving has been committed (Rex v. Langmead (1)). The law on the point was thus set out in the well-known case of R. v. Burdett (2):-
“If a theft has been committed and shortly afterwards the property is found in the possession of a person who can give no account of it, it is presumed that he is a thief.”
In our view, therefore, it was open to the Court in the circumstances of the present case to convict of stealing and housebreaking. No prejudice has been done, however, to the applicant by the conviction on the charge of receiving and the application is refused.
Application refused.
–