Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
J U D G M E N T
CHARGES:
1. CONSPIRACY TO STEAL, CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 23(1) AND 124(1) OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT 1960(ACT 29) AS
AMENDED;
2. UNLAWFUL ENTRY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 152 OF ACT 29/60; and
3. STEALING, CONTRARY TO SECTION 124(1) OF ACT 29/60.
SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTIONS CASE:
It is their case that on the 12th day of March, 2023 at about 4p.m, a witness in this
case visited a scrap dealer at Asamankese and met A1 offering the two stolen
machine motors for sale. That the witness confronted A1 and took the exhibits from
him.
That on 14/3/2023, A1 was arrested by the complainant after the witness had
informed him. Upon his arrest, A1 mentioned A2 as his accomplice, and he was also
arrested.
All these happened after the witness, who is a worker at Pomes oil limited at
Sukrong, Asamankese reported for work on the 12/3/23 at about 7:30p.m and saw
that the two drier machine motors had been stolen.
A1 admitted his guilt and was sentenced after conviction.
SUMMARY OF 2ND ACCUSED (A2’S) CASE
A2 denied involvement in the charges against them. According to him A1 is not his
friend, but he (A2) described A1 as a “Career thief” who comes around an area where
he smokes for recreational purposes. That although A1 is not his friend, he is an
acquaintance whom he meets regularly a place that he described as “Ghetto”.
According to him, A1 suggested to him that they should go and steal but he turned
his down and that is why after being caught, A1decided to implicate him.
That A1 has a mental illness as a result of taking had drugs and therefore has
evidence that he (A2) is his accomplice is a figment of A1’s own imagination, as he
is innocent of all the charges against him. A2 did not call any witness to support his
case.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
From all the evidence before me, the issue for determination is whether or not the
prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the 2nd accused person beyond
reasonable doubt. This, they ought to do by providing either direct proof of the
accused person’s culpability or by way of circumstantial evidence.
To succeed, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove both the actus reus (acts of the
offences charged) and mens rea (i.e the intent of the accused) in committing the
offence, as an act alone would not constitute an offence unless it is committed with
a criminal intent. See Section 10 and 11(3) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323)
as amended.
For the charge or offence of conspi