COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. KUSI

Murphy J.

(His lordship stated the facts, and proceeded):—

It is, I think, clear that in considering the case against the appellant there were two separate questions to be decided:

(1) was the appellant aware that the 1st accused was not in fact the owner of the property described in the lease?.

(2) if so, was the appellant aware of the illegal purpose for which the lease was to be used?

The Senior Magistrate in effect answered both these questions in the affirmative. As to the first question, it is to be noted that the evidence of the Chief and his elder differed very considerably from that of the appellant. If the Chief and his elder were believed, as they were, the appellant had told a number of untruths.

An important question was whether the lease was read over to the Chief by the appellant, since, if it had been, the Chief would have realised that it was not a lease of the 1st accused’s plot of land. As to this, the appellant said in his statement to the police that he did read the lease over. In his evidence he modified this by saying that he read it over, but omitted to mention the building. It is difficult to see how he could have done this inadvertently.

Further, the Senior Magistrate in my view rightly laid stress on that part of the appellant’s evidence in which he said that if the 1st accused had mentioned to the Chief that he intended to erect a building, he (the appellant) would have realised that the 1st accused was deceiving him, as there would then have been no building on the plot.

In fact, it is clear from the evidence of the Chief and his elder that throughout the interview the 1st accused was referring to a plot on which a building was to be erected, and the appellant must have realised that this was not the plot described in the lease. I think, therefore, that the evidence supported the Senior Magistrate's finding that the appellant knew that the 1st accused was not the owner of the property described in the lease, and knew that the Chief was being deceived.

This showed that the appellant was not fit to be a Solicitor's clerk, but it was only one stage in establishing that he had committed the offence with which he was charged. It was still necessary for the Senior Magistrate to answer the second question before him, namely whether the appellant was aware of the illegal purpose for which the lease was to be used.

In his judgment the Senior Magistrate found as a fact that the appellant knew