George Mukela v People (Appeal No 93 of 1985) [1988] ZMSC 93 (3 May 1988)

' ' ti1P st~)J:~r1 rt·/~ttc!ti: -~fi ' . ' ., . ,,..-.... / //~,.~ -- ..t '• . i ;~~~er,i: :~;°~.~'. ~ .. ·~e~ ~~~r~,;~~,,~~~~i,~t;~~t:~wf :~t3~i~;;~i¥.:~::•t;,:r,r1iitri!~,:,' :~. , The appellant. was convicted ,of ,aggravated, rqbb~ry{.th11,.'.'. ·:,;,\./ .•· .•• .. .. • . ,, , • . • , •. ,~ci~.,,,l,_,. · ·.:.. .. . Cl. Ji ... .< -~I k. , " "',.t,, ·~ , , . . • ,. • • ' C 1, particulars of the.charge being that he,,on.the,10th.o1'.,,Aprh,.'· 1984, at Lusaka, ,whilst acting together wJth other pe,rsons un~nown, ,': --~ "·•.~ 1-~_,-.,.., ..... "··. ,,'.,:\·,\ · did.~:rob Randy Orr of the. ~um of K5,878~04n cash toget~er with · personal property to a totalvalue· of K9,605.04'and'at the ·· .· ' ... time of such. stealing did use or ·threaten to use actuaF violence •. 1:?jri"~·,.;r; .--.::• 1 f'. Xi~1, r,,.\:.t~}:~~,-'...<:. k._~. J-: {J:·:~t :•'·,.,·_ , , · · .,,., •• ,, .. ,' ·,· ··•.'.:";,!-\,'' .1--:';...;1. ·i~hb,~> ,,, r • :,:-.-. ,1,·,".,,,.,.,,,;: ' . . ,-;•,1,.).',', ' · . - • • · . , • · ' · · -~•~Ji •. ••·•~ ,:~••-•:, ~ l,1'\,_'/t ' . , .. : : .. ·-·:i : ,,, .... · : , ' ,.-·,,•:, •• .. • d ' , , • ;. -••••, " ' .' ,- , ' ;,,••· ... - -~ ' , ' ' '.~, · .. ,.: -,,., ., :'. _, -· · . , , · , , · ,, , . · . , ' - · . '.' • The prtsecut1011 evid~1,11:111,W~.s J9, ~~e c.~f:.t!.c~,J~~t ~~!~., .}:::C,t:{ \{mi .• • . ,. . ' ' • .. ; .,· , ; .. '.' .,. o. ._ '~: ..... ·,,._t),'i\ •,, -~:: ..... : ( · , • . : · · - . · : · I. l ~J,,O,,'',: ... ,.~ .. nr; ·f.-~f~- ... ;,;~ .... t, 6. ... t,v .. ~ ~~~-1 ~ i-t complainant, who is a me~~r;;of,,t~~ UnifJ~ati9p,,~~,~tc.h, ::t~pt!~~,1\,,' · with other member,s of that .~J'.'de_r,wa~ a~ \~,, r,,f!S1~!lo~~.i~~ 1\0 1/ t;: . · the church when at least .:thr_ee :mtill r,ob!>e~ .t~em:bi;P,!?i~~t~g .a,ql!tjt,,; ,,,, . firing i;t at a door, and hitting two of the witnesses on·,the head ,>11h.;-,;,:,:, .. ::<. ':' . Wi~hr_:th~,gu.11 •. ;--~ .. ·, 1: i'U}•i.-.-.~·'!""\~ .• ···' i.,h,.,"t,1r,,.-.-c·:. ' ·•~·' ... •~~ .•. ;.'.•- •-h · PW,6 an electrician and-special constable'.'ga~ei'evidence'.th~t early• in the morning of the following :day,his,wife. PW.5 repoM:ed 'to him that there were· a number of,personal ar,t1ql,sAif1,cJothi11g a~~ other property lying in the !>l!.~h. Thif pr,opt1r,:ty t!af\~u!>sequell;t,ly identified by the complainant and other.witnesses as having belonged to him. PW.6 went with his wife. to the p~_ac!I wh~r,e_, t.he 11.toperty1 wo.s , lying and the wife left. PW.6 at Jhe.s~ene.,;,·1Whi,11Lh' w.as 1:ther,~,'le heard a noise in the. bush so h~ kep~, qui!lt,,and. Je. o!>s.11rv~d •the · appellant, according ,to his evidenc;e,, bring a br9w11 1~loth whi_ch. he -·~·' : .. t, ,.,... '-.'1",,;'( •.,,. ' .. ;,--.;, " , . .. , _, ' . . ' ,, . - ' ' . .. J2 .. spread on the ground and proceeded to gather u·p the stolen articles · 1n · the cloth. This witness then went fQrward ,.to ar~es~;the,appelJant, The appellant struggled with him. in the course._of-whic,h struggle he·. broke one of the witness's fingers. Thii; witness,.calle~ out ~ihi.ef, thief" and PW.7 came to his assistance sC> 1;hat .1;he appe1iant was,.dulY a_pp~hen~ed., .. .' three prosecution witnesses identified. the 0appellanti:atG~n · · · , · • identification parade on the day after the robbery. A further witness PW,4 who wa$ outside on the veranda~,-ati-the~,time of.,the : · rQb~l!tY failed to identify anyone. ' In addition' to' this evidence' there waslevidence'Lttlat/the' first . _,, 1">·1; .. · ~: ._·i ... /--.-::-.: 't/:\~-~ -~~1.1:-·.;ii'~ls-;~:~;~·~:,)-r•y ':i)!'.'.i(t1i/ib . -;•'' ,.~;:;", . . . . . ~ ', ~- '" .,/ ::. •• - -· ~' ·' •. • < . ' • ' • . -_ ·• , ' ' ' •, '. ' . ,_·, ' ' I ;,-:,_ ~-: ., '' ' ' , t'/"".:-'• ;~,• · C.olonel Kayukw11., Legal Aid cou~sel• Ol!)~~alfr.l)!,,i:~~lil. a~~ell,an~ • .. · .·. has argued four grounds Qf appeal,·•1one·of~these grou~ds'was thatttie appellant's evid1mce remained unc,h11ll.engedi bµ1; dur,lng ;the course of his argument Colonel Kayukwa indicated that•-by this he meant only,that the appellant's evidence shoulcl haye,:b11en b!!lievecl.:.,-As to the .. remaining 91 grounds of appeal, the first,. as. ~r,9~ecl by, Colonel ~aYH~wa, ~a~ :t~at the opportunity to qbserve the rob~er cluri!Jg tlle;cour~e,,of the.r<1bbery was poor for all the witnesses •. I11 coJJseque11c;e,ft,~aii.1argued.th.~t their identification of the· appeU~nt.c:ould .. 11ot · be, relied upon.,. J,· .. ,t, ·e_,"·f•11'. • ' ✓ '.,. -•~~'!, ;. ·,:,:,.. :-· •• •. ' ". •• ' ., - • • • ' ., ,, • • • • • ' ' ', The· learned trial judge himself' fi:,u11d';that:•pw.1~1tlthough he:was in the room at the time of'the robblir. Vmay'not'.;have"ha~>''enough•:,:J ::,L .. : . opportunity as PW' s 2 and . 3 to observe• the"'robber'.'for-1the'' purpose<;,?;· of· identification. • Colonel K\'lyukwa argued that7thefevldence··was that· each of. the three robbers had a :piece ·Of•'cloth"iaCross•his'·mouth 1anif . a hat· which obscured a portion ofithe' head;'?'He argueifi'that ·all'ithe',l,::d .. · .. witnesses were· 1'rightened .• at:the~t1me .. :of~the::.robbety}~,$peci.ally:'ln!r' .... view of. the fact-that, as one Qf'them sa1i1; there.·had!prevlouslyfbeen a ro*rY at the same premises~ •It was'.·.further: argued\'that'there· were discrepancies between the evidence of·. PW'$'•1·and 2'irfthat1 ~ ::.,-"' PW.1 had s.een one of the robbers·wtth,.ll"gunfwhile another'·of:.tilet- ,.·d three robbers h~d. picked up ·pw.2 'from'. whe·rei,she''was• lying' on•·•the\•':-? floor. and had taken her to tht<officet~r'' the' pt.i~p-ose :of 'stealing the money; · This ·was in contrast'to th1r:evidence.-·of.1pw.2~·hereself.•::1.,'d. who said that the man· with 'the>'gun !took 1her::,to.,the :office; ... It v.as '.,:- argued by Colonel Kayukwa that the witnesses \\'ere confused and,., .1,!f<• in consequence they could not have had -an. opportunity- ,to observe. 0 Further ·it was argued that PW.3 had :given evidence,'.that• he had,<,: remained in his bedroom because he, remembei ; the previ«:1us robbery. ·"'; ... :, . . . ' . . . . . . . I'.-,, }:_.:.·,;; '... ,,_-:., -.;· tn- ,~:!~ ;J.c-:j) CtU1)_· ~1>~-:~.;::.;r,. talpf~~t'~~t{_h~(.t~.l~· '• ;,!•<·.- ,_ ... ; ' .- i • • • • •. ' ' ' . ' • • . ,,, ·~ . . ~ \ · ,_ ., .i-- -- • . . . . ' (' 1 .. • _., i,. •' · · .-.11,~ . 1'1 i··.~ ~-t • ·: ,. :y •. 7',;·" . . . . ,,._..,,, ':_''":: , · : .• t- ··~:,i:: · · ·'i,'•'er·, r.".'.-r:; '1• ••'- ,.,,._,,'\~~-., . . ;· --~.~1~ .. ·: .• ·Y;··fY:1 . · .,,; ..... , i;':•:;~·•f'•,J):';~;- ,-,_i;:,,t.,.t·;"; ·,., ·••.~\<i -"!.,,, ~1·~ ,.:, *~jt)'~ t"-F'., , ' ; r;··,,;' _ ... -. ~;~ -;.:~;-';- ')''e"'-";:\·:,f·;~t; " · · .,.,., ......... ,::,.•--t:.~,-_i. · . . ' , , . :tr:·1.;·1;,'•,\'i:•.".'":'.~-t-:"' 'A:,:~---~ ~1:,:"'< . It.~ .~-.., .... ~·~r,-va·1•\ .. :,:; _t:· •• ')-,i.lfl•t\1· ,, .,.,,,.,! :.;'\,''' --~,,.---:4•,r._r-,P;"": ~-t,••, \:.,il..'.l~t·,9·<:1.i.':11•"'-li.,,,.,·.,; •., . . ·- · . · ··· · · · i ·:,~~ .;r"!·-'',t;,-' , . .:.;.",.. ,;•;)~11:~~t 1-.•t~-... 1th· .·.~.t u--t~!1.. J,~~~,.-h,~.·h,n,1 . ·i ~- ·;!';. ::" •.:n· -~~·,.:::;,;; i_,,,}i :G:'.::S · . . . . . , . · ·«.•'.·••'.· 1··,."~ ...... ,;e ...... 11,. ~•·,,;,ll'I~ .• ~~ •H-;,'.~ t,..)-~•,:· h;.;J. J~~, ;. J-,~h~-••\i!' f.'i. -~·4 JtliWH a~cl 't~at'~he~ h~i :d~e' to''1g1~-;'"'eVide1'c~2 ii ~b' ld~1"t1fic~WfJ1iJ1';;l!11.i ' ·. ·'··{1-·r,·~ >.,).f~:-! only able to say that the appellant clo~el,{res~led' the robber,,,_' \:;;,·., :;.1,-;1·-.r'l•:-.-1i he had seen on. the night in question. As a result of this·; Colonel · :-~~ .. -.-.:,. Kayukwa argued that the learned trial judge"stiould have 'fourid'that•'''" the whole of the identification evidence was unsatisfactory bec~use th.e ppportunity to observe was poor .and that other satisfactori ·· ' evidence .should have been looked for by the. learne!1 trial judge · · to_ support 'it~-::-' y·, ·:-· :-:: ·,-,, " i'~: :f~dt ~hat 'thei'lear;ectt~i'~t)Jdg~·;,~1{itik:i'i~i1~1~iJi•it;~ei( ' · · · i • .. :c1 t: 1:,1:tt i)1\' ,:;~r:-pol iwi't.·· · . · ·• "<· · o say·- t !t.,.:,~--. -·• .. 0 -:.-1,~J .,,i •'", ,,, .,, · ·\llhe reaW1t J!')SSBSSl111-cxq>ltd wi~ 1;hl tvi~:ot'~Ula,1¢11!-1~,1~;./ • <. ;; {'.;~!'!; · rEal!JUti<rl RI ic11¢Ificilt1111 b)' FW.l nl IW.3 ~eaves me w!:th Ql1!\ . . • .. . cmclusioo ooly RI tmt ts·• th& liccU$ed was Ql1!\ of' the 'three · : · ·, perlll;IIS'lh:I IW~ ~ ~,W.~¢ 11;/l!J W,d.~,qfJ~~-~~•• , In this connection Colqne\._J{,ll,>''!~l"ll :l!Jl4.!!~•il~!~ \!l~.:J\P;P~U,~r'I; Jfa~,:.flOt in fact in· rec;ent PQ~~es~iqn ,ot~~" i9P~f, ,tll/;~r:.n~J~,0~ §',~e,;~r,gued. · · · · .. that. the appellant's accpu,rt of ,W9~.:t: p~qµr~.• ·;p~Jt. .~~,. !.!~ ;Wii!dln •· innocent ilpasserby near Wh!lre .the .. goqds •. l"~,.i:i!l ,~P,81 ~4~~•1 an~;.,~P,,tt i .: . while he went to investigate them he was arr,e~ted by PW.6, shou~d have been believed. ., ... .:,.· I· of PW.6 was that his wife PW,5 had. leff the:Sc;ene and;at the sa~ · time PW.6 said in his evidence he'decided to, 9Q' toCthe :p.olice and that when• he ha~ gone only three• metres ·he hi;i.ard a lnoi~e:itr ,1;he·:bush '.which · · made him sit down, whereupon the appellant' emerged· from the•bush':;? and began to wrap up some.of the goods'in a:browir'Cloth•·Which:lhe,.i:.:::tl appellant had with him. · Colonel' KayukwaJ:argued tthat•it' Jt' all: 'happened . · as. PW, 6 had said, then PW.5 iwould h~ve •1:>e(;!n' ts~ t9J«>~~,~~,a,t";,Jh8'iheri~tf · . · would have seen the strugga,. which ShEfoid;npt/and 'in•fact what •. .. -: must have occured,Wa!i .t~lli;,;PW .• 6 1'1l4.,'t~.1;t~d ,lP.1111!~AJ1.1~;;;t!~fQJl11 :Y1e11l. Ht'::·n,;".! appellant· passed by, 1.n . a, perfept~t ;i. Jnnq~,!oP;)h'-'1~!\~ll.l'.1~1,;,J:J<P.lain~ng1 the .. reas.on why ~w •. 6 . should · h.ave gtven. µnti::µ,e,J!Y,~.4.e11~e !~l?.,~µt 1t~e. !l~,iJtn: of • the appel I.ant, Colonel •. KaY,u,.~wa, ,sµiige$le~.1t):!P.~, 1a~,t~ .. ,ij;l~igJ~an~,i1;:;~~!3. witnessp.w.6. would h;1•1e ,be~11 ,quJ;te .. P~e~are,~f1;.~;,f,~rl.f,t't.tl~,i~~,c~~ ~::.: J .. against · an 'innooent>per.soril~:rit11rder 'to"gaio;praf~ewfo~ tiavh1g: ~rr~sted a wrongdoer.• .· Furthermore;• '. Uolonei- 'KaYL1kw('poini;~Q,.io\l1\ itha~i :a)~lf9ught!, the goods found in the bu$h were produced11nfco1Jrt/;,the 1brown!:c1~th:C" which ·was alleged to have beeri usecl 1by ith~ 111ppeUirit1:i.f'or:!cglleftlng ·· · the goods together was not pro!1ucei:f by•:the p'oUce off.ii;eriresponsible. He argued that' in the absence pf ,the' brown 1clo1;ti !the: appellant 1s·:'; ,;,/ nefarious purpose of going:in the··busti)purposelt,to1collect 'thEI g??ds . ··. In. this resp(;!ct he potnte~ out/that th~ ·evid~noe:i ·."·::!' ·;:•h.1( _,~~.•,;,;,!1•";'i •'' ·•.•f:.~~ __ · .. ·,: f/-~::: tr•,,:';'.'_ ... ":_;·· ' _," -- , - ,, . ,. ,.-.-,,,:,;,"\: ; . . ,. ·• . • • . : : • ,-.,,:·_ .... '·, . 1 :; ; .'·' ;' , , ,:,. . . . .,_. •. ' .1 , · • • i . ' ' ' ... .,.r..,, .. ", ,.,.,_,..,.,: .1.h~i1t~~:1l*11d , ' ·, .'; ';,;:/.,:-,;,\.-\.\".-/·.::, .. ' , , , • .. # . . , , , ., \ • ~ ·· · 0 r .,1,,., -~ ; 1 • • ·, , .:·. _,·~,. ., , • , .;, -~··:·;;,! ;_,;!~; ~ . . , • ,J ·~·, • ·\-{ {h,·. :·.· • ... - ·- .,., s., • , ,. and• wrap·!them,:up 'in'<thescloth couli:f'lnot';;be supported! byrithe1,~ 11'!\S evidence~' Finally as to' recent:possesslon(iColonel Kayukwa: argi.ie(l)c,,·:; that during the course of his'judgment the\;;learned'-tr1al 'Judge had:. said that it was not disputed by the :appellant '.that;:he"~as, standind hear the. goQ~s i_n .the ,b\lS~ •Whll;Q,;h• ~at a,r~~s~~~fi c!\ ,\l'.11S 1~rg11~d 11i~~~ this showed that the le11rned tr 1111. judge, 11cce~~~<h~h.~ ~epel J,110-~/;~y story that he was only nearby. and,.that he, was not,ln fact,,touching~ ~.~~i;~~9g~. ·,:J \!~1~ iAf.:·li:'iil'i'rJ :1ttr1e_ss,ss, ~~~t; q~~~JJ~n-~:-,9;'~~:~~-o .. ,,\ .'UThe 'finaly: ground :ofCappeal' put fo'rttardlrelatedt,to~trierr~:,ll/id, identification parade. 0It' was 'said•:by'·Colorie1"Kayukwa to havetl>eenor. conducted in . and under unf a 1 r ,· c 1 rcumstances '.'in' "-that;: the "appe 11 ant d had given evidence that on the 'morning before "theiidentificatiorirr;tic:d parade. he had been. taken to the :fann·wher'e the' robbery,hadetaken·.,. place where he had been seem' by twenty'.to'-twenty-five 1personst1 tt,,,t including 'the witnesses Pw•·s 11 ;"2?i1nd 3;cl Furthennore!he argued .·. that· at the· parade"the appellant !had been,:tfie' only•persoriLin' the4 11 ne-up who had grass; on "his \heacParid ,tiJfnf1trousers. · I In tthi s '.l;11fft the connection the' trial' judge {commented ton the 1al1'egatfon 1th at ''the· Jn appellant had been''seen beforetthe !p'arade:•liut saicFhi'.his 'judgment:.:.' 'i:r·i:':} 1Hd{1::),'r:, ft,!rl"11m.tw1t in ~ir·.,~)in;:t With ·- .. "In llt' vi~ I,IOJlc;f_,~;~J~f_.fc~, f~~~~!f.~1~,,at ~ 1·: • . . ,., • . · •·. panda, if the. ~~•-~:~f~,~~,J~1~1~ ~ s~~ ~·~ ~•:;''..,,hen !t .!185 point41d-~ by,Q>J~li~y t!;l~ttJbet:~ppeJ1ltnt,,~~q;,!'.,lgt,,e0n .the _; ~uggested th.at ~w .4,h4d.,s,e,EIIJ \1:\1.m. 1 In f,t<;\,.heil'\,,q ~l'!~lar@f,.fil.rr:ec;t, ~9/ {iw· · · ~W ! • 1, • 2 and 3 11'.1 ~l:li~.'. r~l!PEIC::\. J;.~~l!,EIQl!er,:!;Jy :1. t ;~~$: a,rgu,~d,r\:h~\ the ; 1 den ti f 1 c;at' 1.on , . OPP.o.r:tunJ ty :. w11", P. C>OI"., ntl:\ct :Jdenti f tc;a1;l on ,_Wit$. ;.b~c;f and the evic;tence of ,r;ec::entn~oss~~s!or1,,u~ctc;f .. by the learned trial judge to support-such PO<?r:' evif!EIIJC::& :w~ii.!1 i~~~!{1,i,qg~p~bte ,.of supporting · that -evidence/' -" ::, \,,,1 ti1•t ~'.::,t-:,,:,;,:irl 1.;,;, ~* <atim- by- ti:·s 'f/1..~.'J: rv1~~ 4 (fr~~t ii~-> r...:1"t:.'%. ,,~~~the ~~<iir. J:¢< As'tofthelopportunity to observe we have considered. the'e~jdence. i.n this. respect and_: w~ cann9t ,:.a9'I!e 1Jh~:hi~ht,,!'{i~,!n~'!!~f tf."il~h.f :;:;:1(.1 and. 2 _ indicated that ,.t~t1r~ ;Wa! ,.u~.h ,,S~l!f.l!~J,Q. IJ bf!~W~l!I'.! l'~J:le,niJll,ttt~tJY could not have had -an . Qppor:t;411iJlc.¥!, P,rQP.ec!. Y 9.~s,e~V~tt.lletr,q,bbers. Time and .again, in, t~elr!evld&f!c,~. <!f t~.en1,i.f<tqa\ior:i.ri~.hl!,lfl~i:i~ss~s, s_aid specifically that they had an opportunity to observe. • Again ~p~cifi~ally.they said that despite the ctoth over·e~ch •P.~~~~~!tmouth r··-~s-: . .ti;:: pry"";" .. ,.;,1,,;,:;;ion, and the ,s,mall ,~~t~,1'{~~~. ~Y_,,af~. Rer~~~ ~~,r~v~~~~-~uttl~i~~},1~e~.t~r,es yJsibfe f..or. th.8.'!1 to, I?~ ,a~~,l!~~,,td,~1ifr,1t~,r~~l?,8Ma~t,,,at,i~~ .• !, :. ·. \pentific~ti,o~, p~~a~8.~ 1 ~s 1j?,,,~~~~('~~~;~9, f.~,. ~1~,,~v\~1,-~c,r,,ibi~.~i1lhe identification·. par;a~~{,t~~~ ,ih, R~,~~o~,,hf;i id~~Hr,fiid t~,s r~~i~g, ~~e :.:if the robbers closely resembled oreof the robbers, we are quite · ;_ · • ,, .. :,·'.,;: -?~i,_·\:/h:;'.r> i'.1•'.". c~rn-ar,1;·11nt-;:.i•) >'Jt·n~ • · . •;.'•:',r'......,,·; 1 •.·: lt'ii• ... ·n,::d \ , . •( .- . ,1 . ' . . . . - -----·-:-•"···-:-;··:·;·--- ------· .. - ---. -------:-. . . b . ' ! . : J6. . . \J5 ' • ' , . . , ........ _, ,.~~,.;v. , .... ,,-.:1,.., ~,,,,.~._. 1.;,,.,. n.>.11,.:.,.~. satlst1ed 1that 1n.,the;§9!.lJ~xP.i.9f !~~r~hp]~,R_ft.!1!. S.geyJd~.~Se;:h,,1~8.§r definite l)'. ident 1 fy_i ng t ~e, ~PP"H api; !IS.. ~~ v !ng ·; b,~,IJ ,:(!n~:·,9f. ~~e,1r9bbers and, not merely ,so!l)!!p_n,J wh,p,,r~s~~e~ 11 }:9qgtirt, .. }Tl]!!lp~C?r!l.~rg_J,1_1,;&~!s respect may, h_4ye , b;l\l~!Q ,. _1,t[.lf!?rtYnai, J. ~!1:t i~e ffl.~nJYffr~!! f ,l~~r •.1 t,xig,, ·", '•: '' As to' the'alleged"unfalrness''ofrthe''1dentff1citfon°par~de;while it niay,'have'been 'undesirable if tn·lfactithe 11ppellant''iwas the ~nly . personlto have grass on his heacr and''the 1onlt1person·,to''have a torn trousers, not one,, of the identifying wi:tne,s,stis; ~~! qu~s1~0.n~d,.,~s1Jo, whether this was the reason they, h_ad Jdenti f 1.~<!,J~-~ ;ap~ella.11!n.~!ld, as we have said, their identification.was .. on the,.bas1s,of.,recognit1on. of the facial features. they were,a~le,~o,_,se~ ;d.tispJ}e;,S!)e;.,~:t,~~Rl~d disguise. , We would however,~gr~e.wJt_h,:Col,09e!nKayl,1;~!'t~~~n.,,~, 1~r~ued that. the learned trial ju~ge,l,,,r~a~_qn,s, fp_r; ~t~b,e,lJe,vJ,9_g,J:_hJt1~~8t,; appellant had been seen prior,, to the parade wer,e, fjl)lacious,dn that the appellant nev~r. allf;!ged,,~hat P)!/,4(~ad,;,;~&,Eln -!1.~!11,,P.'i!S!i, t,~,u~he .,.·•- ·. parade, and the j 1Jdge '.s_ ,cp~~:t ~~~t, A~-- l"?\,q~ £1:iav,,, !!~. P.'!.ftjc. LB~~4 to recogn_iSe. him at,Jhe, p~r_!l~~ ,¥~§ ~ ru>fl 1,,9_µJt,ur~8 51!! 1~h,e,,~y,,r. J::1~the passage we have already .. gu~~ec\,,!r~ Jh,,e,J.i:t~rri.•~ J,1;1~Q~-\~:1if81)1~J~~\.~.ll,, this respect should have,_beert,c;o,ri,~Jdgf~ ~fJh.,,r,,J,,f!~.9e.:JP,,,i:):hi11'{~ple . of the passage of, the _lE1arl'\e~ ;triaLJµ~Q,/ s.t':!c\~_llfJJ,?,: c\El~,P.!lg with whether: or not the. i,~en~i ~,~Q ,Pf,O~,e~~,t,i9r:i, :~f ~?.~S!~-~- th~tf.,Je~~ : ~h,,~, ., .!IPP&Uant be,fore..~~;p_ar,ap~:1 t -~~fh, ;9.~,e, <tfr tA~• ,r~?it.1:-,,,~:!nd.(~ \<then. cross_-examined ~ad. specifi_cal lY:,.s;~_~},,d.,, ~Af~;•:the,r p~f,l19~" s~!~1j;tte. · · appellant. before the :i~!ln~i (1.,c~Jl_or P.,!'~~-~,,-~~~l 9~f t~,,.,p,~!'fu{rp,'!1,;1~he _· . fact that in other parts,pf'..l~!-~:. Jl.\dg~ar;i;t ,t~~/ }ear;?e..fir.t~; J~~.~e · indicate that ha occeptedi;t~,:p.ro~.~~1Jti,Q,9 }.'l!~JW~.!e!f~ii w,~~~•,~~13!>f truth,·:he,had,thlsl.tOlJ~ in this c9ntext:- '"ltlv1lv CQllidnl thl ffl- ol' PL Is 1,2,3,4,8,9 SKI 10 I . •· · .. '. ' . . WS 911!1'1':elthr'byd tif.en Li'.> ·t,y. lv1Ya 00 'reimi to' f1Rfttiat'thl1~ PW's 1,2,3, ant .4 ~S,'"'5t ant~ u.i. ~<!Irv r(. n<>re•eo,•~, y · · idlrltificati ~ ... fl ' '" t'':'' .• ,,,.!?J~r.;;.;;.1on tv wt:i:;:i 1,e iH1\/6 1-efer,,':d W$ . .apply:tfie;, .. ,_,I 1~-1,(.,'/ , , , • . ' ••• . . · - - , • . ' . :• ••"-'~: ., .... • • . . .· " • . ' .. • • I · · . '-•. J' ,:.- . , ~•, ,.- -• _ • ''. ilk:'1'.f .i.~.,~,.,_d.:.. • .,.,,,. ," , . .,.,.,-.,._:.'.·.., t_~ J-,·; <'ij"JV-,1.;;,;q.~jj-·;··-~- . It was only after., th~t; h,e ma~!),;,!liS;;COlllll!!ll:t,;,~~t:;,,~~ ~Mq,-,_\~~t~ir,_,e,;Would have expected PW.4 to. ,iden.tifY .. Jh11.app!IU!ll\.t~-1 1},~,f9~l~1(~: ~,rl:!J~qr;~., · that although,there was.a.m1sd1rectlon it did not affect the· ._ .. , · .. learned judge• s proper J;reatment of the whole of the evidence 1n this · respect. .. - ' : '.'::: . l,•~~);llf :r .. ,;,t)i\'t'~. J '/~' •. As to the question of r•~~~~.1?9??,??!9~~-~~-~~9!19~-~Q~~Jhat: .• according to the evidence of PW.6, tiadlhls evidence been true/PW.5 , · must have witnessed the struggle and the 11rrest of the ap~ellant~ · · The evidence as we read it indicates that PW.5 had left the scene before PW.6 walked the three ~~~f~Eo~~n~f ~fl~[rey to report t~the ...................................... _ ...... .. nf'r'UTV CfHFF ,lt!STTCt=' ·• . • ,,. . . . . i ·;:;·1~~ · . , 1n • - , . · l',. F '• -· (": ,, ; ·· ' . '. ..,.. ,.., . • · · · • · • · · • ; · • • • 7·. 6,. . H.' .,. •' .. ' , ..•.. M. s. Chaili<i•• ~ po ce , · ·. · , .· · ACTING SUPREME COURT_ JUDGE • • J6 • • police, and we cannot accept that there is anything in the whole of PW.6' evidence, supported by that of PW.7, to suggest that he was, a lying witness ,onl1,,givi11g eyidence against thEt appeUan.t beca,!lse. he wished to ,ga.in praise· as a vigilante. The learned"trial •'judge··:-:. himself referred.tp,the broken finger suffered by PW.6 and says he could not have suffered such an injury in a struggle with the appellant if the appellant had been an innocent passerby. ' . ·- . (_,,;; ·,.;_-~ n:," ' ' . .; J.•1~-:-.,.,.~;;.,( .•.,.,.",!, 1'1_,,.:..., ;':t.."l ;·_1 . , . • ., , . .. . Colonel Kayukwa has argu~p that the appellant did not know.that Gt':Ct{;;: >:.(~:~i ;\ . A::-,.r~1:~l Itnit ·. d . , . . . ' . , . · $V • ,.. ... , {'' I.~ . ~~ ,·,'f "f •, ·"', ,. J', ·-_;_3• •• •••' • ~----~---~,-.,.~------~••-_.,._._, __ ,,_._, ______ ,,_:,.~-r- ... -•~-_,;.,.._ __ ._ PW.6 was a special constalie .so.,that it was reasonable for him to ;}_,:,•· ,- .,,1r~~rr;• resist his arrest. We are satisfied however that the witness'PW~6 shouted "thief, thief". which' indlcatedrthat he was'•not '.indulging in a gratitious arrest of the appellant,3;and ttie'}appelYant was not j~stified,. ~s ·an, inn-~c~~t' persori; 1n''resfstfog'1hfs1tapprehension to the e~t~nt of breaking'the f1nger'rcif'pw:li:"'There' was' fLirth~rH)L, criticism from Colonel Kayukwa as to the brown cloth· wich was ' alleged to have been carried by· the ·appellant·and·whlch·was · not~·----.. .,.:- produced in evidence. The learned trial· judge noted this argument at the trlal and held that the non-production of the.brown cloth was '1 rr~le11ant.'. co'1'dnel Kayukwa 5arguecFtii'at 1ttie !'suggested carrying of the brown :·cloth as: indicating ,,thefguU.ticQ1\t.tl1e .-app~q~nt. <1nd an . intention ,to ; take away ~1the ,StQ l en, good~ which she()l1Us1, t hll~~ : ll ! ready known about was another"ficttt1o~stpart:,ofJ,PW,6!S !'llJ9!1~ce,,::·~!J.,!11, , this. respect,however eW.6:;wasc,corrqbor,ated bY::PW:.7Qi11J!hWe.,,c11nnot .. , accept ·.the argument thatt11bsem::e·:of1 th~,br,own1cJqth:1tnd~c;ates, lack, ,.of ,veracity on the. par;:t-;of.:ei:tller,. Ptl,,6,!QrtPW ... Z.• zJQ:1~!1aHug,.w!t~ •• this m~t~ers~~-.'?}~.~ .~.o:r-, .. f~~i1.~~r ;~a_!:;,;h,!r·•l~,arnr~.ir. MJ. judge mis~ directed himself at all'~, ......... .. , , ... ,, · ,,.~ ... , ... ·"''·, . . . ·· ,,,.,_, ,. 'i'< t' C,•=·,J· I"'''"~'· \·/"'' Is, ._ ·, .;,~ · , , . . tA?ijEH:.ner::i'- (,,Hl:i. ,,: tf;\.,._fn.,~ •.m~;-• , 1J1-.,1 ,j ;,, -We, find .. that mme,gf ;tlle:,grpl,/r,tds~of;,llPP!!D;l y.rg~4.;i.!JP£>n~ys. by ' Co 1 one l Kayu~11a,; c;ap, !Uc;~•[! $9,, f II r,) ~~.) i 11 [MY~1P8,:.!l19.4~i ,Q9C.!!SJ~sr .. . ,misdire~:tion;.:tQ;)'lhi<;h.,W.e{h!l,y!I r~r..~rr.~sf.,wj,appl,Yi1,~P, . by.the, proviso· to . Section 15 ( 1) of the Supreme Court Act an_d find that a reasonable. court. would, have. convicted on. the evidence, in. a[IY event. The. appeal,;!! dismJ.~sed,i Fih!lfi&r1J nq 8aP,~,~lr,~Q!ii;t!. Fv}~!d to '~,.-,·.• '-•'f.i ~P••~(.~:ii n1.it~e..ddi:.::: iJ~f1i2' uv10,,:.;nc~ tH:-zrt ·1. H,tJ,1 t._C--a, l_Otl VHUl~;u,. ,.,.•,, ... , ,:.,,,, if k-:.t1~,J.t:1 1' (if <'h · ·, • : -· rHmandator. Y,,.m~nil!!1,11l! ,.e~t11.!!!;~• oi' ;:i,w~;11s1/, ;arU<:les -Of clothing and l1tls p~rty ~$':sybsequ~ntly oth,'.lr pr1;p~rty lying in tim ~iish.. l"•··' 1·. t i . ·~ i ,d ... ,.,..t~.,.-;i-:i.' t, ... • e -... Cf(,;_-•.;sil .n. CHh. ,J ..... i. ···~•1".:•. e( •.• ~-"'•'!.19 .. ,.,e\.:. • •l•}•t· ···~· ~ .. .: -.~~ed to· -tf1. ,,, .... ~ /)1/ . . ~-:. , _. .,,_'l<l,tii,r ...... ,,. ... ""~':> ,..,, ... !~ · ........ .... , • .,,.;. • .i, ",_,{J . ..,,,_ •. ·~ -~- ,., ,.. - -:.,,,... ···. i . • . - . . . f ::. ,, \ .. nt ,1Jth :-,i:, 1-!lf;s t~EPfirv~E~l-~~ijOstICE" proµ~ti:Y t'i~S. hli1, Iyi::g anri the :1if<' loft PW,6 ,1t UI~ scene. While he 'rli$ th~rene' heard ~ noise in the bu~I~1 sc; h8-~·-~~"t'! 1 • , . • ·" , "''·''" '•;,;' . 'f· \ n,, t ''"'lsUPREMEiJCQURT·'JUDGE!l cloth ·,,:hid, Ile ~~,:;~-:-. ~::..:~-~:--~-e~s~irt~:--~~~:::·., · . B. T. GARDNER /,~c;W(J l.f•'.; , • . - .· '} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. S. Chaila ACTING SUPREME COURT,JUDGE • .. /J2S'tll'(!ad · .. .