R. v. Raphael Alphonse, Crim. App. 213-M-67; 19/5/67; Platt J.

R. v. Raphael Alphonse, Crim. App. 213-M-67; 19/5/67; Platt J.

Accused was convicted of theft by public servant. (Penal Code, ss. 265,270). The evidence showed that a cheque had been forged and that accused, a clerk in the Public Works Department, had had ample opportunity to commit the offence. A handwriting expert and accused ’s superior both testified that the writing on the cheque was that of the accused; the latter witness, however subsequently admitted that he was not certain.

            Held: (1) There must be some evidence connecting an accused with a forgery other than the testimony of a handwriting analyst. (2) “ (O)pportunity alone does not amount to corroboration unless the circumstances and locality of the opportunity are such as in themselves amount to corroboration.” Citing Omari s/o Hassan v. R., (1956) 23 E.A.C.A. 580. (3) As the evidence showed that others also had had an opportunity to commit the offence, and did not with certainty place the accused at the locality of the offence, at the time of the offence, the result could be no more than a “grave suspicion” that the accused was guilty. Conviction quashed.