Rajabu s/o Athumani v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 176-D-67, 13/11/67, Hamlyn J.
Accused was convicted of burglary and stealing. The main matter raised on appeal was his contention that the conviction should be quashed because it was based upon the finding of the stolen property in his house when he was not present. It was not contended that the search was invalid in any other way.
Held: It is desirable but not necessary that a search by police to private premises be conducted in the presence of the owner or inhabitant. “But ….. the fact that the owner was not present at the time does not invalidate the search. It is of course a simple safeguard for the searching officer to be accompanied by independent persons of the locality, who can be called to give evidence that the search was properly and fairly conducted and that no question of ‘planting’ any property on the premises can be raised.”
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.