Robert Paine v S (CR APP 1 of 2016) [2020] SLCA 5 (18 June 2020)

RAPP. 12016 INTHE COURT OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN ROBERT PAINE = APPELLANT Axo ‘THe STATE = RESPONDENT coramt:

HON. MIR JUSTICE JB, ALLIEU JA. PRESIDING

HON. MRS, JUSTICE LE, KING-JA,

HOM MR.JUSTICE S.A. BAH -JA REPRESENTATIONS:

| KANNEH ESQ. FOR THE APPELLANT

C. MANTSEBO ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT

ocwenr petiveren THe 1B pay oF juve 2020 HON. Mi JUSTICE JOHN BOSCO ALLIEUJA. = PRESIDING I ‘Thins an Appeal agains the Judgment of the Hon. M.usice Alusine § Seay J A. (Now J.S.C) dated 2 February 2016. Counsel forthe Appellant being dissed withthe said Judgment lodged (ou) Grounds of Appeal in a Notice of Appeal dated 2™ August 2016 containing Particulars of Mindtetons (See Pages 827.830 ofthe Court Records). Counsel forthe Appellant state in the sud Notice of Appel thatthe Judgment of the Learned Trial Judge dated 2" February 2016 is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the vides adduced atthe wal

‘Counsel for the Appellant relied on his synopsis of arguments dated 12 February 2019 and 16* February 2020, respectively

‘Counsel for the Respondent relied on his synopsis of arguments dated 26” June 2019 and 9" December 2019, respectively.

u

In Ground 1 of his Appeal, Counsel for the Appellant submitted thatthe Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in reaching his decision agains the 2"! Accused (the Appellant herein) in that he substantially relied on the testimony and statement of his co-accused (the convicted I* accused, who didn’t appeal against his conviction).

Counsel for the Appellant referred this Hon. Court to page 24 of the judgment dated 2%! February 2016 (found in page 243 of the Court Records Vol.1) as containing the smisdirections of the Learned Trial Judge.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is the principle of law that statements made by ‘one accused person either to the police or to any other authority are not evidence agains the co accused except ifthe co-accused ether expressly or impliedly adopts the statement.

He further submitted that in the trial below, the Learried Trial Judge, sitting alone, relied solely on the statement of the 1% accused (the convict) to conviet the 2% accused (the Appellant herein). He invited this Honourable Court to peruse the statements of the I accused (the convict) and the statement ofthe 2% accused (Appellant found in pages 622 to 626 and in pages 706 o 728 of the Court Records, respectively

According to Counsel, the Appellant denied his involvement in the alleged Criminal enterprise and thatthe prosecution failed to point at any other evidence apart from the 1 accused's (convict) statement against the 2™ accused (the Appellant herein, ‘The statement ofthe 1* accused (convict), according to him, which the Learned Tal Judge substantially relied upon to conviet the 2 accused (the Appellant herein) was controverted by the sid 1" accused (the Convict) at the trial

Counsel forthe Appellant relied on the cases, of: 1, The State Vs. Ahmed S. D. Turay & Others $.C. CR. APP. No. 2/81 (unreported)

2. RLV, Rudd (1948) 32 CR. APP 138

‘Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submited that the Learned Trial Judge, in his Judgment dated 2" February 2016, did not convict the Appellant merely on the statement

made by the I* accused (convict) but that donor funds were transferred into the account of the Appellant and referred to pages 370-375 of the Court records. Further reference was ‘made by Counsel, to pages 623, 565 and 713 of the said records

Counsel for the Respondent submitted thatthe Appellant did not raise any factual issues with regards to the Donor funds that were deposited in his accounts. No other sources were referred to except the ones deposited by the Political Parties Registration Commission (P. P RO).

‘Counsel for the Respondent also referred tothe case of The State Vs. Ahmed S. D. Turay and others

8. C. Cr. App. No, 2/81 relied upon by Counsel for the Appellant and submitted that the Learned Chief Justice Livesey Luke, drew a distinction between cases before a Jury and those before a Judge sitting alone. He went on to say that the prohibition of a court relying on 4 statement ofa co-accused to conviet an accused only exists in relation to jury trials

He, too, referred to the judgment of the Leamed Tal Judge dated 2™ February 2016 (found in page 243 of the Court Records vol) in which the said Trial Judge stated that he could not rely on the admissions ofthe 1" accused (convict) to convict the Appellant.

‘Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that in lie with pages 719-720 of the Court Records, the Learned Trial Judge correctly found that the explanations of the Appellant were inadequate and unclear and that he rightly placed reliance onthe statement ofthe 1" accused (convict) in accordance with the dicta of the Learned Chief Justice in the ease of The State Vs. Ahmed

8. D. Turay & Others S.C. CR. APP. 2/81. He reiterated that the I** accused (convict) stated in his statement that he withdrew the total amount of Le10,400,000 (Ten Million, Four Hundred Thousand Leones) from the P.P.R.C. accounts and deposited same into the appellant's personal bank account and it is the same sum of money that was

withdrawn by the Appellant and utilised for some purposes other than those authorised by the Donor. In relation to this argument, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Learned Trial Judge correctly convicted the Appellant, that no miscarriage of Justice has been occasioned to the Appellant and thatthe conviction ought to stand, ‘Counsel for the Respondent relied on the cases of: 1, The State vs. Ahmed S. Turay & Others S.C. CR. APP. No. 2/81 (unreported)

2. The State vs. Herbert George Williams and 8 Others (Unreported) Judgment delivered by the Hon, Mr, Justice J. B. A. Katutsi on 10 August 2012. m In relation to the Ground of Appeal contained in paragraph II hereof and the arguments submitted by the respective counsel, I will first and foremost refer to the statements made to the ACC investigators by the I** accused (convict) commencing 26 August 2013 and that of the Appellant commencing 22" August 2013, ‘The 1* accused (convict) in his statement made to the ACC Investigators, in pages 622 to 627 of the Court Records mentioned that he deposited certain sums of money into the Appellant's account at Rokel Commercial Bank. ‘The Appellant in his statement made to the ACC Investigators, pages 706 to 728 of the Court, Records, denied the allegations of the 1" accused (convict) levied against him. He denied that he requested for the sum of Le10,400,000/00 (Ten Million, Four Hundred Thousand Leones) from the I" Accused (convict) on behalf of management as kickbacks and challenged the ACC investigators to cross check with the other management staff (about 5 in ‘number) as to whether or not it is true, He further denied knowledge of the sum of ‘Le46,630,000/00(Forty Six Million, Six Hundred and Thirty Thousand Leones) payable to the I" accused (convict) and that he is only seeing for the first time, documents relating to same when showed to him by the ACC Investigators. He claimed malice on the pat ofthe 1 accused (conviet).

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