Peter Halloran V The State (16 of 2005) [2005] SLCA 2 (12 October 2005)

itt epee seme CREAPP. [6/2005 241 # ~ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: =~ 22 PETER HALLORAN ~ APPELLANT AND THE STATE - RESPONDENT

Coram

Hon. Justice Sir John Muria JA (Presiding) Hon. Justice U.H, Tejan-Jalioh JA Hon. Justice A.N.B. Stronge JA _ HEARING: 6 July 2005

Judgment

12" October, 2005 Advocates: Appeliant: N.C. Browne-Marke, Esq.; Respondent: A.K.A. Barber, Esq.; Delivered this (2% day of Lefer 208. g + MURIA JA: The appeltant was tried at the High Court. of Sista Lewis wir eo Count of indecent assault on a gitl under the age of 14 years contiery t Soeur, 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act (Cap.31) 1960. He wos tov. <i Guilty on the charge and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Two ctiver accused were charged with the offence of conspiring to pervert the course of Justice and tried together with appellant. The two accused were acquitted of the

offence of conspiracy. The appellant has now appealed to this court against both * tis convicticn and sentence. He has been granted bail pending the hearing and * determination of his appeal. ‘The appellant was formerly employed by the Special Court of Sierra Leone as Investigator. -While.in_Sierra Leone, he, together with his other working colleagues, namely, Mandy Cordwell, Ralph La Pierre and Sharon Holt shared a house at 6 Wilberforce Valley. As he had made arrangement for his girfriend ind child to join him in Freetown by the 14" June 2004, the appellant sought to find a nanny for the child. It would appear that the girl, Kadie Kabia (P.W.4) was introduced to the appellant by the second accused on 30" May 2004. The ) second accused who was employed as a houseboy at 6 Wilberforce Valley, is the brother of P.W.4. The appellant had given some ability test to P.W.4 but itis not clear on the evidence that she was actually employed as a nanny by the appellant.

i “The evidence of P.W.4 herself, however, shows that she had been at the house ‘on 31% May 2004, 1* June 2004 and 2"! June 2004. It was the househoy ea accused) who showed P.W.4 around the house on 31" May 2004, shoring tier the vacant room which she would be using to sleep in and teid hey Sat er occasions she would have to sleep with the appellant's wife, P.W.4 csi si house, in the vacant room shown to her, on Monday 34" May 2004 sii5 "4.

4% June 2004, On Wednesday morning 2" June 2004, Mrs. Mary + (P:Wa1) met her in the house and asked if she could have a sta ial. wisi 2 Which she had no objection. P.w.1 asked her where she had been vivo she replied that she had been sleeping in the vacant room. When estet 4 P.W.1 if the appellant had gone into that room to sleep with her, che doit ° sleeping with the appellant. It is correct to say that as a result of the “small talk” ' petween P.W.4 and P.WA4, information was passed on to Janet Tommy (P.W.2)

Lud V 3 mo by P.WW1 and on which the interview between P.W.2 and P.W.4 was conducted ~ (see page 74 of Record). P.W.4 was further interviewed by Joseph Senesia "Vandy (P.W.3) culminating in the making of Exhibit G which is P.W.4's statement ‘ containing the allegations adversed to the appellant. Consequent upon the making of Exhibit G, the appellant was arrested and charged with indecently assaulting P.W.4. The appellant denied throughout that he indecently assaulted P.W.4 in any way whatsoever. As it transpired both P.W.4 (the alleged complainant) and the appellant denied any form of indecent assault. It therefore must be obvious that the prosecution must rely on some other evidence to support their case against the appellant. The witnesses called by the prosecution were P.W.1 whose evidence, at ils highest confirmed the presence of P.W.4 in the house between 31% May 2004 and 2% June 2004, She gave evidence at the trial that she saw P.W.4 in tho house and on Wednesday 2 June 2004 she had “small talk" with P.W.4 resulting in some information which she (P.W.1) obviously had written down’ and later passed on to P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the evidence, the allegations of indecent assault were not made by P.W.4 in the first place to P.W.1 or to any other person but had their origin from the information obtained by P.W.1 during the “small talk” between herself and P.W.4. This information was clearly the origin of the allegations against the appellant. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.WW.2 concerned with their interviews with P.W.4 and the accused, inuiuding i> appellant. Both P.W.2 and P.W.3 confirmed that they conducted the inieiviows based on the information given to them by P.W.1. The doctor (PW g3° evidence of her examination of P.W.4 on 16" July 2004 end fier <p exhibited as Exhibit F1 and F2, The doctor's examination of P.W.4 was elsei conducted based on the allegations contained in the Police Medica! Ropuri 1 It is important to note that the female police officer, namod hwy + ‘ accompanied P.W.4 to the doctor for medical examination (old the dozter i» = “another white lady called Mandy suspected that the child has been assaulted. ‘She asked her, and Kadie explained about the incident’. Officer Mary was

2 bpp

* iF relating to the doctor what P.W.1 told her and that clearly caniot be accepted as admissible evidence. Ibrahim Kargbo (P.W.6) gave evidence that he recelved “the items alleged to have been collected from the appellant's room by the police. é "These were one pair of blue jean trousers, one maroon polo shirt and DVD ation film. These items were simply tendered by the Police Exhibit Clerk as exhibits kept in custody. No attempt had been made by the prosecution to identify these items for the purpose of linking them with any of the accused or P.W.4. Those items, like P.W.5's medical report, were admitted in evidence despite strong # ‘objection by Counsel for the appellant. The other prosecution witness was Ralph La Pierre (P.W.7) whose evidence was that relating to his discussion with P.W.1 about P.W. 4’s presence in the house and driving P.W.4 and P.W.1 to the various locations including, the Country Lodge at Hill Station. Usufu Dafae (P.W8) gave evidence But his evidence has little to do with the appellant. Albeito Fabbri (P.W.9) gave evidence of an investigation he conducted and report made on the appeltant’s conduct. P.W.9's evidence, in particular his report, had been ruled inadmissible by the trial judge. It is of litle use to the prosecution case. Leaving aside Exhibit G (the previous inconsistent statement of P.W.4), the sworn evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, taken at their best, amounts fo no more than a case of grave suspicion that something might have happerzedt between the appellant and P.W.4. It was, therefore, incumbent on tir prosecution to look elsewhere for evidence to support their case. My rcading vi the record of this appeal lead me to the conclusion that the only materia! that Ur» prosecution had buttressed their case on was Exhibit G whore ths alley! complaints of indecent assault were mentioned. As | have siated wsiiit.r, i {i sworn evidence, P.W.4 denied all the allegations of indecent acts ost upon her by the appellant. She further stated in her sworn evidence =f Sic = that it was P.W.1 who made her say what she told the police in Evi. G. bh : importantly, P.W. 4 was the principal witness for the State and right from the beginning of the trial denied any form of indecent assault on her by the appellant,

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