Daisy Venn v S (SC CR APP 2 of 1977) [1977] SLSC 9 (14 December 1977)

po saa Bae ‘ ey : ees TLTHE Suenewtioer or srenua trove 26 “> ype orser APP.NO.2/77 hy DATSY A, Veww 7 APPLLANT vo. THe stare pa Respowneyn N.D, TEYAN-COLE, ESQ. FOR TH APPULTAVE DR. BANKOLE THOMPSON FOR THE RESPONDENT conamy— Hon. Chief Justice c.0.5. cols “= Presiding Hon. Mr.Justice B.Livesey Luke - Justice of the Supreme Court Hon. Mr. Justice Cut. Herding - Justice ot one Supreme Cours Hon. Ur. Justice K.z.0, During = Justice of Appeal Hon. Mr. Justice PA. Short = Sustiee of Appeal aH JUDGMENT DeLrverED tHe 14' Day or December yo77, COLE, ©.3+1- Learned Coumse: for the appellant in opening this appent, submitted that the pith and marrow of this anceat rest on the anavers to be elven to four questions of secs constitutional legal importance, nahery1. (4) whether the word "State" is aynomymous with the word "Government; (44) whether at the matertal time of the alleged offences the appellant vas a public officer suaee Section 93 of the Constitution of Serra teone 1971 (Act No. 6 of 1971) and, if #0, whether in law she oan be regarded as an onployeo of tthe Stacet as distinct from an employee of "the Governnusts of Siorra Leone; (444) whether 16 te correct to hold that ane vas * a clerk or servant of the State of Sierra Leone and whether the vouchers in question, namely, Exnidite C, D&B were the property of other the State of Sierra Leone or the Government of ‘ Sierra Leone; and ; ig t i vdne of)

eg Re ee ee ot 4 ae (iv) whether the Court of Appeal wos right in holding that as from the 19¢ April 1971 and by virtue of the Constitution (Consequential | Provisions) Act 1971 (Act No. 9 of 1971) existing | acts, Liabilities and chligations were acts, Liabilities and obligations of the State on the date of conviction, S The facts of the case are not in dispute. I will state | them.as suceintly as I possibly can. The appellant was convicted on the 29th day of August 1975 on an indictment presented to the High Court on six counts, three of which were for falsification of accounts | contrary to Section 1 of the Falsificntion of Accounts Act 1875 and the other three for larceny contrary to Section 17(1)(a) of the Larceny Act 1916, She was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment against vhich sentences she has not appealed, The appellant appealed against her conviction to the Court of Appeal which on the 2th day of September 1976 dismissed the appeal and affirmed her convictions. From thie judgment the appellant bas appealed to this Court on the following erounder= "(4) Whether a Public officer unde~ Section 93(1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of ‘1971 as amended, can be convicted of Falsification of Accounts under section of the Faleiftention of : Accounts Act 1875 if in the Particulars of the Offence and during the trial it 48 laid and proved respectively that the document or accounts belong to the State of Sierra Leone.

(44) Whether on charges as (1) above, the Public Officer oan be convicted if the Particulars of Offence state that her employer 1s the State of Sierra Leone, (4414) Whether the same officer as (1) above can t be convicted of offences of lérceny by servant under Section 17(1)(a) of the Larceny Act if the Particulars of the Statement of Offence allese that sho isn clerk or servant to the State of i . . seeeee/9) k

Sierra Leone.

. (iv) Whether she can be conviéted of an offence

under (444) 4£ the Particulars allege that she stole from the State of Sierra Leone. (v) Whether naving regard tp statutory provisions and case law in Sierra Leone re the term "Government" the Court of Appeal is right to hold that since April 1971 property of the Government of Sierra Leone have become the property of the State of Sierra Leone. (vi) Whether dn a criminal trial by Judge alone, the defence vould have been adequately considered by the Trial Judge when in the review of the evidence of the case for the Prosecution, he indicated that he has read tho statement of the accused and will comment on it later but failed to do so and fails to consider and refer in his judgment possible defence arising from the evidence."

‘There was another ground of appeal which was abandoned.

As T have alrendy stated at the opening of this judgment the grounds of appeal are condensed to anawering the questions already posed. These questions also include the all-important question whether the State of Sierra Leone is'a person in lay within the ambit of our muntetpal law,

By letter of appointment dated the 2hth May, 1957, having satisfactorily completed her training in the Clerks ‘raining School, the appellant was offered appointment as a ‘Third Grade Clerk in the Income Tax Department of the then Government Service of Sierra Leone. The appointmont was pensionable, On the 31st May 1957 she accepted in writing ‘the appointment on the conditions set out. She worked in the Income Tax Department until 1968 vhen she was transferred to the Technical Institute, which was a branch of the Ministry of Fducation, as Chief Clerk. Her duties included general administration, preparation of Imprest Rooks and paying of salaries of staff of the Institute, She remained « civil Servant and a Public Officer up to the date of her conviction.

‘mo expression "Public Officer" js defined in the Sierra Leone (Constitution) Order-in-Counci1 1961 (P.N. No.78 of 1961)

(hereafter referred to as "the 1961 Constitution"), Section 107(1) reads as followss-

“public officer" means a person holding or

: acting in a public office", The expression "public office" is also defined in the same Order-in-Council to mean an office of dmolument in the public service." The expression "public service" is also defined in the same Order-in-Council. It means "subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the service of the Crown in a civil capacity in respect of the government of Sierra Leone and includes the service of the Crown in a civil capacity in respect of the government of the former Colony and Protectorate,of Sierra Leone."

For the purpose of this case it ie not necessary to construe sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section now quoted.

The Constitution of Sierrs Leone 1971 (Act Wo. 6 of 1971) also defines “public officer", “public office" and the "public service". It is not necessary to ant ont these definitiond because they are in substance the same as those contained in the above quoted definitions.

The Constitution of Sierra Leone 1971 (Act No. 6 of 1971) came into force on the 19th April 1971. T shall hereafter refer to it as "the 1971 Constitution". By Section 95 it revoked the 1961 Constitution. There can be no doubt that the 1971 Constitution preserved the legal position of all | public officers within the meaning of both Constitutions, which I have already quoted, as at that date, that is, 19th April 1971. Thereforo, on the dates of the alleged offences and throughout the whole of 1972, the appellant was a public officer and was so up to the date of her conviction,

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.