John Reekie V. The Queen (1954)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Criminal Law—Sexual Offences—Corroboration; nature of function of Judge and of jury—Trial with Assessors—Misdirection to Assessors on corroboration. Appeals in Criminal Cases—West African Court of Appeal (Criminal Cases) Ordinance, section 4 (1) and proviso, how applied—Misdirection on question of law.

Facts

The above proviso is that the Court may, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if they consider that no substantial miscarriage of
justice has actually occurred.

It is an established rule that in sexual offences the Judge must direct himself and the (jury or) assessors that corroboration of the complainant’s evidence is desirable.

Whether any particular evidence can be corroboration is for the Judge to decide; the jury decides the weight to be attached to it.

The appellant was convicted of buggery and complained on appeal that the Judge, who was alive to the desirability of corroborative evidence, misdirected himself and the assessors (with whom the trial was made) on what could be regarded as corroboration: the evidence which he invited the assessors to consider was whether the insistence of the appellant’s superior that the case should be settled out of Court, upon his being told about it by a police officer, and that the appellant should pay money, was not corroboration of the complainant’s story.

It was conceded by the Crown that that was not corroborative evidence but argued that the evidence justified the verdict and the misdirection did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and that the above-cited proviso should be applied.

For the Crown it was also pointed out that the misdirection to the assessors was not repeated in the judgment and did not influence the Judge himself, and that a Judge is not bound to accept the assessors’ opinion.

Held

Where there is a wrong decision of any question of law the appellant has the right to have his appeal allowed unless the Crown can show that, on a right direction, the jury must have come to the same conclusion.

In this case there was an important misdirection and it was impossible to say that on a right direction the Judge and the assessors must have come to the same conclusion.

Held also: The Judge has a duty to consider the assessors’ opinion, and the summing-up to them cannot be left out of account; nor is it to be inferred that because the misdirection was not repeated in the judgment it did not affect the Judge’s mind in deciding the case.

Appeal allowed; verdict of acquittal.