Martin s/o Kamau v. R., Crim. App. 525-D-68, 6/11/68, Biron J.

Martin s/o Kamau v. R., Crim. App. 525-D-68, 6/11/68, Biron J.

Accused was convicted of conveying property reasonably suspected to have been stolen from his employer, c/s 312, Penal Code. The magistrate rejected his claim of right based on a written authorisation by his superintendent. The magistrate believed the superintendent’s testimony that the authorisation did not cover the items found in accused ’s possession, and did not cover the items found in accused ’s possession, and did not cover the day on which accused was arrested. The High Court, finding that the authorisation was ambiguous enough that the accused might have read it otherwise, and might therefore have been conveying the property under bona fide claim of right, reversed the conviction on that grounds.

            Held: The Court stated, obiter; The magistrate expressly found that accused had stolen the items from his employers. “It is well settle law … that where the evidence establishes that a person has in fact stolen the property ….. he cannot be reasonably suspected of having been stolen.” Also, although such a conviction may be returned upon a charge for theft, a theft conviction cannot be returned on a charge under s. 312, Penal Code.