Parker v S (CR APP 24 of 1975) [1976] SLCA 10 (26 October 1976)

(097480) 1 SLBALR Parker y The Sate 1 PARKER v THE STATE, cA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR SIERRA LEONE, Criminal Appeal 24 of 1975, Hon Justice

‘Tejan JSC, Hon Justice Awunor-Renner JA, Hon Justice Cole JA, 26 October 1976

[1) Criminal Law and Procedure - Larceny ~ Whether s 17(1) of the Lareceny Act 1916 applied to clerks o servants of the State ~ Larceny Act 1916 17

(2) Criminal Law and Procedure - Evidence ~ Similar fact evidence - General principles - Similar fact evidence admissible only where connected in some relevant ‘way with the accused and participation in the crime

{3) Constitutional Law — Sierra Leone - Whether State of Sierra Leone an entity for the purposes of larceny ~ The Constitution (Consequential Provisions) Act No of 1971s

“The appellant, a clerk at the Ministry of Education, was attached as a financial clerk to the

“Technical Institute and was convicted of 3 counts on falsification of accounts contrary tos 1 of

Falsificaton of Accounts Act 1875 and 3 counts of larceny contrary to s 17(1Xa) of the

Larceny Act 1916. The appellant was responsible for preparing vouchers and cheque order

forms and other duties. During the tral, evidence was adduced to show thatthe appellant had

been aware and was part of these dishonest transactions atthe Insitute which allowed for surplus monies to be got from payment vouchers for personal gain. The transactions which

‘where the subject of the 6 counts showed that inthe months of October to December 1974 the

‘vouchers were inflated by the sum of 1e2000.00 for each month and thatthe amounts were

‘aid out tothe appellant. Evidence was further adduced to show thatthe appellant was a clerk

‘or servant of the Goverment of Sierra Leone during which these transactions occurred. The

‘appellant was convicted on all counts. His appeal against conviction for falsification of

‘accounts was quashed by the Court of Appeal and this judgment concemed his appeal against

conviction on the 3 counts of larceny.

Held, pr Tejan PJ dismissing the appeal against conviction for larceny:

1, Section 17(1) of the Larceny Act 1916 is a section of general application to clerks or | servants or persons employed as clerks o servants whether in govemmmental employment | ‘or not. Aclerk or servant employed by the State can be indicted either under s17(1) ors 17(2). Rv Parsons (1886-1890) 16 Cox 498 applied.

2. The general law relating to similar fact evidence is that facts which are relevant merely from their general similarity to the main fact of transaction, and not from some specific ‘connection therewith are not admissible to show its existence or occurrence. Evidence ‘may not be given to prove an act done by a person of similar acts done either by himself with the object of showing a general disposition, habit or propensity to commit and a ‘consequent probability of his having committed the actin question, or by others, though similarly circumstanced to himself, to show that he would be likely to act as they. Facts may, however, be relevant to show whether the act alleged was designed or accidental or to show the identity of the person orto rebut a defence which might otherwise be open to him, in which case they are admissible notwithstanding that they also may tend to show a ‘general propensity

3. The principle of similar fact evidence is that it is inadmissible in an allegation against an accused unless the similar facts are connected in some relevant way with the accused and

Bs Sia Lee Bar Association Law Reps (u97482]1 SUBALR his participation in the crime. In this case the evidence was rightly received as it was right forthe prosecution to give in evidence exher instances of the accused having commitied ‘offences similar to the one for which he was now being tied. Makin v AG for New South Wales (1894) AC 57, Rv Sims (1946) KB $31 and Harris v DPP (1952) AC 694 applied.

4. Evidence that monies found in the possession of the appellant was relevant and ‘admissible tothe charge of larceny of money. The appellant himself confessed to having taken the money and money was found in his possession.

5. The State of Siera Leone is an entity forthe purpose of larceny as it can acquire rights, liabilities and obligations and the appellant asa clerk ofthe tate can and did cornmit the offence of larceny against it. Venn v The State (Cr App No 23/75, unreported), (affirmed bby the Supreme Court, see Venn v The State {1974-82} 1 SLBALR *) followed.

Cases referred 10

Boardman v DPP (1974) 3 AlLER 887.

Harris v DPP (1952) AC 694

Makin v AG for New South Wales (1894) AC 57

‘Noor Mohamed v The King (1949) AC 182

Patrick Cole v The State (1974-82) | SLBALR 87

Ry Armstrong (1922) 2 KB 555

Ry Bayswater (1922) 17 Cr App R 66

R y Boardman (1974) 3 WLR 673

Ry Carrick and Three Others (1968) ALR (SL) 25 |

Ry Dossett Carington and Kirwans Reports 306

yy Garrick and Others (1967-1968) ALR (SL) 25.

Ry Geering 1813215

Ry George Sims 31 Cr App R 158

Ry Graham (1875) 13 Cox 57

Ry Gray 4 Forster and Finlasous Reports 110

Ry Martin (1961) 45 Cr App R 199

Ry Parsons (1886-1890) 16 Cox 498

Rv Seymour (1954) 1 Al ER 1006

Ry Shaibu Yakubu 10 WACA 267 06

Ry Sims (1946) KB 531

Ry Smith (1915) 84 LJR 215

Ry Thompson (1922) 17 Cr App 71

Ry Whitaker (1914) 3 KB 1283

‘Thompson v The King (1918) AC 232

Venn v The State (Cr App No 23/75, unreported) (affirmed by the Supreme Cour, see Venn y

‘The State (1974-82) | SLBALR *.

Legislation referred to

Criminal Procedure Act 1965 Sch 1 s9

Falsification of Accounts Act 1975 5 1

Larcency Act 1916 5 17(1a), (2Xa)

‘The Constitution (Consequential Provisions) Act No 9 of 1971 5 16

(Other sources referred to

Archbolds’ CriminalLaw and Pleadings (36* Edition) para 2073

Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3" Edition) Vol 10 784

Phipson on Evidence (11® Edition) p 191 para 451

| [197482] | SLBALR Parker v The State 136 pat 005 ae te ‘Appeal ‘The appellant was convicted and sentenced in the High Court in Freetown before Wame J on 6 ‘counts relating to offences for falsification of accounts and larceny. The Court of Appeal ‘allowed an appeal in respect ofthe conviction relating to falsification of accounts on the basis that the particulars of the offence omitted the essential ingredients to constitute the offence, and the appellant's convictions on these counts were quashed. This judgment concerned the appellant's appeal against conviction for larceny. The facts appear in the judgment of the Court below. DrA.0 Conteh and Mr T M Terry for the appellant. ‘Mr Bankole-Thompson and Mr D P Carew for the State. ‘TEJAN JSC: Ibrahim Parker, the appellant in this case was tried in the High Court at Freetown, and on the 21" August, 1975, was convicted and sentenced by Wame J (as he then ‘was) on each of six counts of charges, three for the offences of Falsification of Accounts ‘contrary to § 1 of the Falsification of Accounts Act 1875, and the other three for offences of larceny contrary to s 17(1)a) of the Larceny Act 1916. By this appeal, the appellant now seeks to set aside the conviction on various grounds. “The background of the case can be shortly summarised as follows: In the months of October, November and December 1974, the appellant who was ‘employed as a clerk at the Technical Institute, a branch of the Ministry of Education, | performed the duties of a finance clerk which involved the preparation of vouchers, cheque ‘order forms and the encashment of cheques and payment of salaries of the staf ofthe Institute. Jn onder to carry out his duties with regard to payment of salaries. five copies of the vouchers hhad to be prepared. Four of these were sent to the Ministry of Education where they were ‘checked and passed. Entries of the particulars of the vouchers were then made in the vote service ledger of the Ministry of Education, which was then signed by either the Senior ‘Accountant of the Senior Assistant Secretary of the Finance division, These vouchers were ‘returned tothe Institute where cheque order forms were prepared and signed by the Principal of the Institute or by any Senior Officer so permitted. They were sent to the Treasury where ‘cheques for the amount on the vouchers were made out. The cheques were endorsed by the ‘Principal, and after the endorsement, the appellant encashed the cheques and paid out salaries. (On the 29* April 1975, Detective Inspector Amedofo who at the time was carrying out ‘certain investigations into the accounts of the Institute invited the appellant to the CID Headquarters. Amedofo told the appellant about the investigation and his discovery that each ‘voucher for the months of October, November and December 1974 had been inflated by the ‘sum of Le2000,00 while the appellant was the accounts clerk. The appellant then volunteered a statement which was written down by Amedofo. After the appellant had read the statement and agreed that it was correct he signed it. Extracts of this statement are recorded thus: “In February 1975, when I prepared vouchers, Ihad a grand total to which I added the figure two thousand leones. What I normally do is to type out the voucher and insert the ‘correct total which the Principal Mr Davies signs. After his signature, I erase the true | figures and then type out another figure by inflation of Le2000.00. In March 1975 L again added two thousand leones to the grand sum total after the Principal had signed. I did the ‘same thing but I did not receive the amount for April, 1975. I take the cheques to the Bank of Sierra Leone, where I cash the cheques. On my way to school, I pass my house ‘and deduct the amount which I added. On 29.4:75, I was invited to CID Office. I was | then taken to my house where I was searched. CID men found Le4,800.00 in my trunk and Le130.00 in my bag. The two inflations I made for February and March 1975

1 Sir Leone Bar Asscition Law Repos {197482} 1 SLBALR | “amounted to Le4000.00 which I kept in my trunk. The 2600.00 was the profit of my rice ‘business. The Le130.00 found in my bag was school money..."

(On the 29 April 1975, Amedofo and a team of detectives searched the premises of the appellant. In the appellant's room in a trunk, the sum of Le1000.00 in Le2 notes was discovered. The sum of Le 30.00 was found in a black bag. When appellant was questioned bout the Le4000.00, he sad

“Fe got them through his accounting trick athe Technical Institute.”

‘The sum of Le130.00 according to the appellant's explanation was a left over after payment of salaries. Amedofo took possession of the monies and went to the Principal Mr Davies. Davies handed some vouchers to Amedofo after the safe had been sealed. Amedofo requested from the Accountant-General the Technical Institute Emolument vouchers. Among. the vouchers obtained from the Accountant-General were PEVS 71/38/1074, TI/I6/11/74 and, TIA2/YH together with the respective cheque order forms and the Bank of Sierra Leone cheques. Amedofo collected other financial documents. On examination, he observed there ‘were erasures on the vouchers, and in some cases the total did not agree with the total on the ‘copy vouchers. Amedofo informed the Auditor-General who sent a Mr Harleston to assist in the inquiry. Amedofo also collected two letters signed “D” which the appellant sad in the presence of Bambay Kamara were written by one Miss Venn as a result of the sum of 11£2000,00 which he inflated in the salaries ofthe staff, and which he took without giving Miss ‘Venn her share. At this stage, the appellant volunteered to make another statement which ‘Amedofo wrote down and the appellant signed as correct. The following are extracts ofthis statement:

“On 294.75 when CID men searched my house, they found two hand written letters

signed “D” with the instruction that they should be destroyed. CID men asked me to

‘know who was the writer of the letters. I told them that it was one Miss Daisy Venn. This

letter was in connection with the sum of Le2000.00 which I seized from Miss Daisy |

Venn and Mrs Rendall .. sometime later in 1974, Miss Venn was sick again and the

Principal took me to the Treasury. T signed the cheque order form and received the

‘cheque. [took it to the Bank of Sierra Leone where I cashed it.I noticed that there was

4 surplus of L22000.00 again. I took this amount home and kept it... later, she was

transferred from the Institue. Before she left she told me that each time I prepare the

‘vouchers and they passed and signed, I should then add the figure two to the thousand

‘column and later take the money to her and she wil give me mine and take the rest to the

pre-punch section. She told me if 1 fall to doit she will report the matter because the

Cheque order forms only bear my name and through that I wil suffer. became afraid and

‘complied with her instructions eventhough she left the Insitute since September of 1974.

‘At one time when she was at Geological Department she went to me in the night with

‘Mrs Randall She told me that she had heard that I was adding more figures to the salary

than what we had aranged ... in March 1975, Thad the same surplus. I sent Le1000.00 10

bed

Amedoo collected specimen handvwritings from a number of people connected with the Institute, and these together with the documents already in his possession he handed over to Bambay Kamara for examination. The prosecution then called Harleston, Principal Auditor attached to the Auditor-General Department, who confirmed the discovery of Amedofo from his examination of various financial documents that in the months of October, November and ‘December 1974, the vouchers were inflated by the sum of Le2000.00 for each month and that the amounts were paid out to the appellant. Evidence was next adduced to show that the appellant was a clerk or servant of the Goverment of Sierra Leone during the period of enquiry.

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