%20(18)%20(1).png)
Awali Mlanga v. R., Crim. App. 205-A-67, 20/3/68, Platt J.
Accused was convicted of house breaking and stealing [P.C. ss. 265, 294 (1)], in a prosecution based on his “recent possession” of goods identified as stolen. The High Court quashed the convictions because of the weakness of the evidence identifying the goods.
The Court stated, obiter: “It is to be observed that in a case of recent possession the proper test to be applied is whether the defence could reasonably have been true.”
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(18)%20(1).png&description=Awali Mlanga v. R., Crim. App. 205-A-67, 20/3/68, Platt J.){kind=link}
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.