Commissioner Of Police V. Robert Ogbame Cofie (1941)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Conviction for Stealing from warehouse—No evidence showing subject matter of charge riz: Shirts, were missing from any bale in the warehouse—Evidence that a bale of similar shirts had been tampered with—Well established that the fact of stealing may he proved by all the circumstances of the caselt is not a rule of law that the corpus Midi must be expressly proved.

Held : That the evidence against the appellant was so overwhelming that the appeal must be dismissed.

Cases cited :—

R. v. Dredge, 1 Cox 235;

R. v. Hooper, 175 Eng. Rep. 637;

R. v. Burton, 23 L.J.M.C. 52;

R. v. Sbarra, 13 Cr. App. Rep. 118;

R. v. Fuschillo, 27 Cr. App. Rep. 193;

R. v. Boateng (unreported) ‘decided in this Court on the 10th June, 1941).

W . H. Irwin for Respondent.

C. P. F. etwoonor-Renner for Appellant.

The following joint judgment was delivered :—

KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST svn M’CARTHY, J.

In this case the appellant was convicted by the District Magistrate, Accra, of stealing two shirts from the King’s warehouse. The only difficulty in the case is that the prosecution did sot give evidence to prove that the two shirts which formed the subject matter of the charge were found to be missing from any bale of goods in the King’s Warehouse, though evidence was given that a bale of similar shirts had been tampered with. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the contents of the bale were not checked, so that evidence could have been led to prove the loss: But it is well established that the fact of stealing may be proved by all the circumstances of the case and it is not a rule of law that the corpus delicti must be expressly proved.

It is always a question for the Jury or other Judge of the facts

missioner(R. v. Dredge, 1 Cox 235; R. v. Hooper, 175 Eng. Rep. 637;

of Police

R. v. Burton, 23 L.J.M.C. 52; R. v. Sbarra, 13 Cr. App. Rep.

Roe118; R. v. Fuschillo, 27 Cr. App. Rep. 193; R. v. Boateng

Robert(unreported) decided in this Court on the 10th June, 1941):

ingdon,

PetridesIn this case the evidence against the appellant is so over-

C.JJ. andwhelming that, in spite of the failure of the prosecution to lead

M’carthy, j• evidence as to the corpus delicti, we are of opinion that the conviction must be allowed to stand.

The appeal is dismissed.