COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. BONNEY & ORS. [1959]DLCA2003

Date	1959-05-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA2003

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J.

GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.

ACOLATSE J.

[1959]DLCA2003
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">COMMISSIONER OF POLICE <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;BONNEY &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 237<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
29TH MAY, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J., GRANVILLE SHARP
J.A. AND ACOLATSE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.<o:p></o:p>Granville
Sharp J.A., delivered the judgment of the Court:<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:—)<o:p></o:p>Whatever
may be the fact as to the purchase of cloth, it is perfectly clear that the
story told by the first appellant in the presence of the second appellant as to
the availability of money in her house was false. It was this falsehood that
induced the victim of the appellants to consent to hand over to the first
appellant the sum of £600 Bray’s consent was therefore void, for Section 16 (2)
of the Criminal Code expressly provides: “A consent shall be void if it is
obtained by means of deceit or duress.” Clearly therefore, in our opinion, at
the moment when the woman took the money, she took it without the consent of
the owner, and dishonestly appropriated it. The offence was one of stealing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
District Magistrate, however, is recorded as finding that these two appellants
were “not guilty of stealing, but guilty of fraud by false pretences”. In this
the learned Judge of the Divisional Court supported him.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship read Section 39 of the Criminal Code and Section 154 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, as reproduced in the headnote, and continued:—)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In our
opinion, the combined effect of these two provisions is<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1) that
if upon a charge of stealing it be found that the facts do not support such a
charge, but do support a charge of fraud by false pretences, an accused person
may be found guilty of such a charge by substitution although it formed no part
of the indictment; but<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) that
if the facts do support a charge of stealing, it is upon that count, and that
count alone, that an accused person must be dealt with and convicted, and if
wrongly acquitted upon such a charge the same facts cannot be used in order to
convict him on a substituted charge, particularly where it appears (as it does
in the instant case) that the ownership of the money was not severed from the
person who handed it to the accused by way only of a temporary loan.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The same
reasoning would apply to Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A person
wrongly acquitted on a charge of false pretences cannot on the same facts be
convicted of stealing unless the facts support a charge.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants ought in our opinion to have been convicted of stealing, as in R. v.
Aickles (2 East P.C.675, C.C.R.). They were wrongly acquitted, and we cannot
review this finding. We were of opinion that the facts did not support a charge
of fraud by false pretences.<o:p></o:p>

</main>