Emmanuel Tumbotele v. R., Crim. App. 189-A-67, 2/2/68, Seaton J.

Emmanuel Tumbotele v. R., Crim. App. 189-A-67, 2/2/68, Seaton J.

Accused were convicted of shop breaking, malicious damage to property and robbery with violence [P.C. ss. 297, 326(1), 285, 286.] They were picked out at an identification parade at the police station, as the men who had approached a disabled car at night to rob the passengers, by one of the passengers. He said he had seen them in the light of the headlamps. He and he other passengers all testified that they recognized the accused at the trial as the men who had attacked their car; their testimony conflicted, however, as to whether they had all attended the identification parade and there identified the accused.

            Held: It has been held that, where the evidence implicating an accused is “entirely of identification”, it must be “absolutely water-tight to justify conviction.” [Citing R. v. Sebwato (1960) E.A.C.A. 179.] In the present case, the evidence regarding identification is “unsatisfactory”, so that sustaining the con-viction would be “unsafe.” Convictions quashed.