Paulo Tamvule v. R. Crim. App. 85-M-67; 28/4/67; Platt, J.

Paulo Tamvule v. R. Crim. App. 85-M-67; 28/4/67; Platt, J.

Accused was convicted of two counts of office breaking. (P.C. s. 296(1).) With regard to each of the counts, there were introduced into evidence pieces of glass on which accused ’s fingerprints were allegedly found. All of this glass was at some time in the possession of police officers who did not testify at the trial and the evidence did not reveal the identity of all of the officers who had had possession of the glass. The prosecution also introduced a fingerprint form, but the officer who had taken the fingerprints did not testify nor did any other person who witnessed the taking of the fingerprints and might have identified the forms.

            Held: (1) A clear chain of evidence was not established showing that the glass examined by the expert was the same glass as was found at the scene of the offences. It is not satisfactory for one police officer to say he took the glass and the expert to say that another police officer gave him the glass unless some explanation is given. In such circumstances there is not certainty that the exhibits have not been tampered with. (2)Since the fingerprints form introduced into evidence was not identified by the officer who prepared the form or by any witness to its preparation, there is not evidence that the form examined by the expert was that taken from the accused. The convictions were quashed.