Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Hamidu s/o Udu v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 169-D-67, 26/12/67, Biron J.



Hamidu s/o Udu v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 169-D-67, 26/12/67, Biron J.

Accused was arrested as a tax defaulter. In making an inventory of his property at the lock-up, a purportedly stolen radio was found among his possessions. Accused told two different and inconsistent stories at different times about how the radio came to be among his belongings. He was convicted of receiving stolen property.

            Held: (1) It is not the rule that there must be independent evidence of a theft. The circumstances in which an accused receives goods may of themselves prove that the goods were stolen, and further may prove that he knew that fact at the time when he received them. [Citing R. v. Sbarra, 13 Cr. App. R. 118, Darling J.] (2) In the instant case, however, there was neither evidence that the radio was stolen, nor evidence as to the circumstances under which the accused received the radio. Conviction quashed. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments