John Brown Akosa V. The Commissioner Of Police (1950)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Restitution order in respect of stolen property—Identification of property necessary but may be proved circumstantially—Burden of proof of introducing evidence rests on prosecution but may subsequently shift to the accused—
Distinction between theft and false pretences.

Facts

The appellant, who was convicted of stealing, appealed against a restitution order in respect of the sum of £426 currency notes. The evidence established that by means of forged vouchers the appellant received £450 in currency notes. Subsequently, £426 in currency notes were found in his house, some of them tied up in bank wrappers. The notes had been handed to the appellant by the bank cashier in bank wrappers. Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to give any explanation about the money as the onus was on the Crown to prove the identity of the notes.

This Court also considered whether the appellant was guilty of theft or false pretences.

Held

The burden is on the Crown to prove the identity of property in respect of which a restitution order is made, but although the burden of introducing evidence rests on the Crown in the first instance, it may subsequently shift to the defence. In the circumstances of this case the onus had shifted to the appellant and he had not discharged it.

Held further, that where a person, through the fraudulent representation of another, delivers to him a chattel, intending to pass the property in it, the latter cannot be indicted for larceny, but is guilty of false pretences. This was what happened in this case and the appellant was not guilty of theft, but of false pretences.

Appeal dismissed but conviction varied. Verdict of guilty of obtaining money by false pretences substituted.