Lotisia v. R. Crim. App. 221-A-70; 12/2/71; Kwikima Ag. J.
The appellant was convicted of being in unlawful possession of Moshi and fined 1.000/- or 12 months. In order to prove that the liquid found in the possession of the accused was Moshi, the prosecution called a special constable who stated inter alia, “I know that it was ‘Moshi’ because I was myself a manufacturer and drinker of moshi before I was employed as special constable”
Held: (obiter) (1) “It hardly seems just that the Police should employ experienced drinkers to go about “tasting” moshi. This practice, although recognised by Seaton in his ruling above, goes contrary to the concept of justice and should be discouraged. Any Police Officer boasting as P. w. 1 did in this case would be confession to his crimes and the accused if not the public at large would be left wondering why such expert should be rewarded with a job instead of standing in the dock like the accused. Whatever the demerits of this mode of proof, however, this court seems to have accepted it and I cannot go back on it.” (2) “There is further authority to the effect that scientific or expert testimony is not necessary to identify native liquor (R. v. Amiri Rashidi 1968 H. C. D. 302). This is further support to the conviction of the appellant recorded without the liquor being scientifically analysed by the Government Chemist. I find myself bound to accept the unpleasant fact of identification by self-confessed moshi brewers and testors employed by the Police. Accordingly I will not disturb the conviction of the appellant.” (3) “I do consider, however his complaint against sentence to be justified. The two tins with which the appellant was found could not have fetched him half the fine imposed on him. In the absence of any aggravating circumstances, I reduce his fine to Shs. 600/-. The appellant who is serving a jail sentence of twelve months in default is to serve six months only. (4) Appeal against conviction dismissed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.