COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. DIMBIE [1959]DLCA2004

Date	1959-05-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA2004

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J.

ACOLATSE J

OLLENNU J.

[1959]DLCA2004
																																						<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">&nbsp;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;DIMBIE<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 202<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:
1ST 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., ACOLATSE J. AND
OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE AG. C.J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the decision of Smith J. dismissing an appeal against conviction
by the District Magistrate, sitting at Tamale, for the offences of conspiracy
and stealing. The appellant was charged and convicted, together with another
person who has not appealed, and with him we are not concerned.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
were three charges of conspiracy, and three charges of stealing. Apart from the
evidence that both men together stole the sum specified in each of the three
counts of stealing on three different dates there was no specific evidence to
establish that there was any anterior conspiracy to commit the offence of
stealing. Conspiracy to commit a criminal offence is by itself a criminal
offence, whether the offence contemplated is or is not committed. It follows,
therefore, that where there is a specific charge of conspiracy, that is to say
in addition to the offence itself, there must be some evidence directed and
confined to the facts which constitute or are concerned with the conspiracy. It
is not so in this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
Crown Counsel for the respondent conceded that it is undesirable to add a count
for conspiracy to an indictment charging a specific substantive offence in
cases where it is clear that the evidence to be submitted for consideration is
nothing more than evidence of the actual commission of the substantive offence.
In the case of R. v. Boulton ((1871) 12 Cox at p.93) Cockburn C.J. in summing
up had this to say:<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">“I am
clearly of the opinion that where the proof intended to be submitted to a jury
is proof of the actual commission of crime, it is not the proper course to
charge the parties with conspiring to commit it, for that course operates, it
is manifest, unfairly and unjustly against the parties accused.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Although
we are aware that it often happens that conspiracy to do such a thing as
stealing may be inferred from the evidence establishing theft, nevertheless in
giving the best consideration to this case we do not think there was evidence
upon which any of the three conspiracy charges as separate and specific
offences can be supported. We would therefore allow the appeal with respect to
the conspiracy charges, that is to say, counts 1, 3 and 5.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
position is, however, different with respect to counts 2, 4 and 6, which charged
the appellant with stealing.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:—)<o:p></o:p>In our
view, this is strong evidence from which dishonesty may well be inferred, and
which implicates the appellant on the charges of stealing preferred against
him.<o:p></o:p>The short
question in this appeal is whether the appellant’s appropriation was dishonest.
Section 27 of the Criminal Code defines stealing as follows:<o:p></o:p>