Marcus Liopold Lupembe v. R. Crim. App. 145-M-67; 7/6/67; Platt, J.

Marcus Liopold Lupembe v. R. Crim. App. 145-M-67; 7/6/67; Platt, J.

Accused was convicted of theft by Public servant. (P.C. ss. 265, 270.) He was in charge of paying compensation claims and there was evidence that he failed to give the money to the rightful claimants. His defence was the money had been paid to other persons by mistake and there had been no theft. However, there was evidence that when an accountant had notified him of the missing funds, he had stated that he had lost them and made partial restitution.

            Held: (1) Both the admission that accused had lost the money and the evidence that he had made partial restitution were admissible into evidence because these events took place before the police had been called in to investigate the case. (2) However, the admission might have referred to the fact that the money had been paid by mistake to the wrong persons. Therefore, it was ambiguous. The conviction was quashed for insufficient evidence.