R. v. Damiano Paulo. (PC) Crim. App. 765-M-69; 6/12/69, Seaton J.

R. v. Damiano Paulo. (PC) Crim. App. 765-M-69; 6/12/69, Seaton J.

The appellants were convicted of unlawful possession of moshi. The only evidence as to the nature of the pombe was that of two police officers that they recognised the pombe by its smell. The prosecution witnesses did not describe themselves as experts in the detection of moshi or indicate in what manner they came to be certain what kind of pombe it was.

            Held: “This Court has frequently pointed out the necessity of establishing the qualifications or experience of witnesses who testify regarding the nature of substances or liquids alleged to be prohibited. I would cite as an example the case of Salum Haruna v. R., Crim. App. 773-M-67, (1968) H.C.D. 37, where Cross J. held as follows: “It would be most unsafe to base a conviction on the bald evidence of a police constable that he knows bhang without any inquiry as to how he acquired his knowledge.” In the case cited the evidence for he prosecution was stronger than in the present case because at least one police officer had testified; “I knew bhang”. Nevertheless, the conviction was quashed on appeal to this Court. In the absence of any indication in the present case that the Police Officers were qualified or experienced, their mere description of the pombe as moshi because of its smell is insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals are accordingly allowed, the convictions quashed and sentences set aside.”