Appeal Court. Appeal from Three
Convictions and Sentences for
Theft by the Supreme Court of
the Gambia.
Theft-Three convictions upon
charges substantially the same.
Held: One conviction to stand,
the remainder quashed. Sentence
reduced.
The facts of the case are
sufficiently set out in the
judgment. C.
D. H. During
for the Appellant.
Benka Coker
for the Crown.
The following judgment was
delivered :KINGDON, C.].,
NIGERIA.
In this case the appellant has
appealed against his conviction
and has been granted leave by
this Court to appeal out of time
against his sentence.
The appellant was convicted upon
three charges of theft and
sentenced to fifteen months'
I.H.L. on each count, the
sentences to run concurrently.
In addition he was sentenced
under the first count to pay £15
14s. compensation to Mrs. Eliza
Andrews. It has been argued
before us that each charge is
merely a variation of the same
offence and the Court should
therefore have treated the
charges as alternative charges,
and therefore it was not
competent for the Court to find
the appellant guilty on each of
the several charges; and that as
the Court had wrongly treated
each charge as a separate charge
the appellant was entitled to be
acquitted on all three.
This Court agrees that the
charges were alternative
charges, but does not agree that
the appellant is entitled to
acquittal on all three.
The convictions- on the second
and third charges are therefore
quashed, but the conviction on
the first is affirmed, this
Court being of opinion that
there is no substance in any of
the other grounds urged against
the conviction.
So far as the sentence is
concerned this Court is of
opinion that there are two
factors in the appellant's
favour to be considered;
firstly, that since the
proceedings were started he has
made restitution, and secondly,
that the learned Judge in
sentencing the appellant
considered that three offences
had been committed whereas in
reality only one had been
committed. Moreover it is clear
that, whilst the present legal
adviser was acting as Judge, he
was prepared to let the
appellant go entirely free from
criminal proceedings, provided
that restitution were made. This
Court therefore is of opinion
that the sentence inflicted was
too severe and accordingly
reduces the fifteen months' hard
labour imposed to nine months'
hard labour to run from the date
of conviction. The remainder of
the sentence imposed on count
one to stand good.
