S v Ahmed S.D Turay (SC CR APP 2 of 1981) [1982] SLSC 6 (13 July 1982)

au N THE SUPREME couRT o fom oT, TUTE SUPREMP counr oF srEnRA LeoNR ——~—

Coram

The Hon. Mr. Justice B, Livesey Luke, C.J. -Presiding ~~ ~ Tue Hon, Mr, Justice CA, Harding, J.8.C. The Hon, Mrs.Justice A.V.A. Awunor-Renner, J.S.f. "The-Hony Xr. Justice S. RepclesDavies, J.S.C. The Hon, Mr, Justice K.E.0. During, J.A. Sc. Cr. App. No.2/81 tue stare = APPELLANT ise ae AWMED S.D, TURAY & ORS. — RESPONDENTS Tojan Cole Beq., D.P.P. for the State 1.8, Johnson, Beq., for Respondents Livesey Luke, G.3.1- On 29th March, 1978 the thres respondenta and two others were convicted by Mr. Justice 6,8, Davies —weetiia- aac fangs shone’ ht shel Rica aly Mita Si on Indictment sontsining eleven counts,” Zt te uot necasgary bo sot out the counts in full, It will be sufficient to state 4 Sadie ouiatanee. In Count 1, the 1st respondent (Ahmed Sankey Dian Turay), the and respondent (Joseph Ngeboh Squire) and one Amadu Mohamed Conteh were charged with Larceny by @ servant contrary to Section 17(2)a of the Larceny Act, 1916s and the particulars ot orronce aiteged that on a day unimown between 21t August, 4975 ana gor September, 1975 at Nevion Agricultural Station tn ing santstry of Agriculture and Natural Roscurces they etote 1a2159-19 vo1onging to ene Republic of Sierra Leone. ss Cougt 2, the sane persone naned in Count 1 were charged vith enn ts naar comce as in Count 1y the only difference being that aa a8 wie diieaed Gia¥ Gh Seeeies dn the Farttouler® ot eer ery 1975 and 20th Qereter, was committed pofwee og stolen was Leh214.43, 1975 and that the amou I3Rovee ieenreerr smears

acienaagas SRE cane persone naned an Count 1 voce chareed witty She Lene FEROS a0 An Couns 4, the only aitterence being that $0, Sot POvelpulere sf Ottenes it wns alzeged thet the offence wae committed Between 21st October, 1975 and 20th Neveuber, 1975 and that the amount stolen was 103966,93. TnGount kt, the same persons named in Count 1 were charged with ‘he same offence as in Counti, the only difference being that im the Particulars of Offence it was alleged that the offence was committed betwoon 21st November, 1975 and 20th December, 1975 and that the amount stolen was Leb ti7

41. In Count 5, the 1st respondent and one Evans Rashid Jobo Sama were charged with the same offence as in Count 1, the only difference being that in the Particulare of Offence it was alleged that the offence was committed between 21st May, 1975 and 20th June, 1975 and that the amount stolen was 104563.90. ‘In Count 6, the same persons named in Count 5 were again charged with the same offence as in Count 1, the only difference being that in the Particulars of Offence it was alleged that tho offence was committed between 21st June, 1975 and 20th July, 1975 and that the amount stolen was Le853.38, In Count 7, the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent and the 3ra respondent (Josephus Justice Davies) and Anadu Mohamed Conteh wore charged with the same offence as in Count 1, the only difference being that in the Particulars of Offence it was aileged that the offence was committed between 21st May, 1976 and 20th June, 1976 and that the amount stolen was Lo5463,81, In Count 8, the same persons named in Count 7 were again charged vith the same offence ae in Count 1, the only differare being that in the Particulars of Offence it was alleged that the offence vas committed between 21et July, 1976 and 20th jount stolen was Le5116,31.

August, 1976 and that the am

Ta Count 2, the tet Fespondent, the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent and Amadu Mohamed Conteh vore charged with FeisaTioation Gf! Accounts Sobtinny’ tS Gaetien sor ihe Faleification of Accounts Act, 1875; and the particulars siieged vhat on 8th June, 1976 at the Newton Agricultural Station they made or concurred in making a false Pay Shoot No.WR443/6/76 purporting to show that the sum of Le399.96 was due and payable as wages for the period 21et May, 1976 to 20th June, 1976 to certain named persons as employece of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In Count 10, the 1st respondent and Evans Rashid Jobo Sama were charged with the same offence as in Count 9, the only difference being that in the particulars of offence it was ajleged that the offence was committed on or about 18th March, 1975, that the pay sheet alleged to have beon falsified was given as No.WR425/3/75, that the amount involved was stated as 0665.28, that the period for which the wages were due and payable was stated as 21st February, 1975 to 20th March, 1975 and that the persons named as employees of the Ministry were different from those named in Count 9, In Count 11, the 1st respondent and Evan Rashid Jobo Sama were charged with Conspiracy to Defraud and in the Particulare of Offence it was alleged that on divers days between tet July, 1o7h and 31st January, 1975 at Newton Agricultural Station they together with others unknown conspired with intent to defraud the Ropublic by the preparation of monthly Pay Shoots for fictitious omployees. ‘the 1earned trial Judge found the 1st respondent Not Guilty as charged but Guilty of Obtaining Money by False Protences in weapect of Counte 1) 2, 3s 4+ 51 Gy Tand 85 and Guilty ae charged in respect of Counts 9, T0.and 11, He found the 2nd wenpondent wor ousnty as charged but OUAItY of Obtaining Money [3heveee

by Paise Protences an respect of Counts 1, 2, 9, 4, 7 and 8 and Guilty ae charged in respect of Count

9. He found the 3rd respondent Not Guilty as charged but Guilty of Obtaining Money by False Protences in respect of Counts 7 and 8; and Guilty ae charged in respect of Count 9, In respect of each conviction the learned judge imposed a punishment of a fine or imprisonment in default thereof, The three respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction, In addition the Ist and the 3rd respondents appealed against sentence. The appeals were heard by the Court of Appeal (Tejan J.S.C., Warne and Short JJ.A.) in September, 1980, Judgment was delivered on 27th January, 1981, Three separate judgments were delivered, The main judgment was delivered by Tejan J.S0. and Warne J.A, CouCurtilwith himadding a few observations of his own, All three Justices were in agreement in allowing the appeal of the 1st respondent against conviction. Tejan J.S.C. and Warne J.A, allowed tho appeals of the 2nd and the 3rd respondents against conviction, whilst Short J.a, dismissed their appeals. In the result the appeals of all the three respondents were allowed and their convictions were quashed. It is against that decision that the State has appealed to this Court, Seven grounds of appeal were filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions on behalf of the State, The main issues raised in this appeal may be summarized thus: (4) wnether there is any obligation on a

trial judge sitting without a jury

to warn himself that the oral or

written statement of one accused

person is not evidence against a

co-accused.

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