–
REX
V.
THOMAS CAMARA
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT BATHURST, SIERRA LEONE
12TH DAY OF MARCH, 1938
2PLR/1938/8 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1938/8 (WACA)
(1938) IV WACA PP. 41 – 42
LEX (1938) – IV WACA PP. 41 – 42
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
DONALD KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST (GHANA)
AND WEBB, C.J. SIERRA LEONE
–
BETWEEN:
REX — Respondent
AND
THOMAS CAMARA — Appellant
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Provincial Court of the South Bank Province
–
REPRESENTATION
S. A. Benka-Coker — for Crown.
C. D. H. During — for Appellant
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — PROOF OF CRIME:- Extortion by a Public Officer contrary to section 87 of the Criminal Code — Questions of irregularity of trial and admissibility of evidence raised by Appellant — How treated
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — PROOF OF CRIME:- Inadmissible evidence — Evidence given after closure of case of defence but expressly requested for by defence — How treated
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — PROOF OF CRIME:- Inadmissible evidence — Similar facts evidence — Whether extends to evidence which makes reference to no charges or specific complaints against the appellant, but is merely of a general nature showing that complaints had been made and the appellant amongst others warned not to do the very fact of which he had been found guilty
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held:
1. A finding expressly stating “Guilty on all three counts” does not amount to only one conviction being recorded and so a trial is not vitiated therefrom.
2. Passing of only one sentence in respect of multiple (three) albeit not in accordance with the usual practice; does not amount to an incurable irregularity, and can be cured by the appellate court as was done in this case.
3. The evidence of a witness requested for by the accused person cannot be inadmissible for the same reason and at the instance of the accused person simply because that witness was called by the Court after the case for the defence was closed. For by calling him itself the Court gave the accused the additional advantage of being able to cross-examine. The appellant suffered no prejudice and has no ground for complaint.
4. There is in this case no body of evidence which is inadmissible because it referred to previous complaints of previous offences committed by accused. Rather, the said evidence makes reference to no charges or specific complaints against the appellant, but is merely of a general nature showing that complaints against the staff generally had been received and that the appellant amongst others had been warned not to do the very fact of which he had been found guilty. That is very different from evidence of specific offences.
Appeal dismissed.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST AND WEBB, C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
In this case the appellant was charged in the Provincial Court of the South Bank Province with extortion by a public officer contrary to section 87 of the Criminal Code. The particulars were set out in fifteen counts each charging a separate offence. He pleaded not guilty to all counts. Whereupon he was tried upon three of the counts namely Nos. 6, 10 and 11. The Commissioner who constituted the Court, found the appellant “Guilty on all three counts,” and passed the following sentence:
“Six months imprisonment with hard labour and a fine of £40: in default of payment of the fine a further six months’ imprisonment with hard labour consecutively to first six months. Three months given to accused to pay the fine. Sentence in respect of all three counts.”
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court which upheld the convictions but varied the sentence to sentences of four months imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. The appellant has now appealed to this Court against the convictions on questions of law.
One point made by his counsel is that the trial was irregular in that the Commissioner heard evidence on all the three counts before giving his decision on any one, thereby prejudice the fair trial. As to this, the procedure followed was that expressly sanctioned by section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that is nothing on this point.
Then counsel submitted that the trial was irregular because only one conviction was recorded; but this is not the case. The finding expressly stated “Guilty on all three counts.”
Next counsel argued that the trial was vitiated because only one sentence was passed in respect of the three counts. This was not in accordance with the usual practice; but if it amounted to an irregularity, it was one which could be, and was, in fact cured by the Supreme Court on appeal. The sentences which were passed by the Supreme Court are in order and the departure from the usual practice in the court of trial is not a sufficient reason for quashing the convictions.
Counsel for the appellant further submitted that certain inadmissible evidence was wrongly admitted at the trial. He complained first that the evidence of Dr. Bright-Richards should not have been admitted at all because that witness was called by the Court after the case for the defence was closed. But the accused expressly asked for this witness to be called. And by calling him itself the Court gave the accused the additional advantage of being able to cross-examine. The appellant obviously suffered no prejudice and has no ground for complaint. Counsel then pointed to a considerable body of evidence which he submitted was inadmissible because it referred to previous complaints of previous offences committed by accused. But an examination of the evidence referred to does not bear out counsel’s submission. The evidence makes reference to no charges or specific complaints against the appellant, but is merely of a general nature showing that complaints against the staff generally had been received and that the appellant amongst others had been warned not to do the very fact of which he had been found guilty. This is very different from the facts in the cases quoted by counsel in all of which evidence of specific offences was allowed to go to the Jury.
The evidence in question in this case was clearly admissible.
There is no substance in any of the points submitted on behalf of the appellant and the appeal is dismissed.