William H. T. Edmondson And Another v S (CR APP 18 of 1987) [2001] SLCA 18 (6 February 2001)

« 1 Sk INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE \ cRAPP.18/87 & CR. APP. 46/87 BETWEEN: Tenn MOEAor THIELE EDMONDSON AHMAD I ~ APPELLANTS AND THE STATE - RESPONDENT | CORAM: | Hon, Mr. Justice E.C. Thompson-Davis - JSC | Hon. Mr. Justice M.O. Adophy - JA | Hon. Mr. Justice A.B. Timbo -JA v S.AJ. Pratt, Esq., for the Appellant DEP. for the State JupGmenrt DeLivered 6/2/01 THOMPSON-DAVIS, JSC:- The Appellant was on June 15, 1987 convicted by the | High Court holden at Freetown, Mr. Justice N.D. Alhadi presiding, on fourteen | counts of conspiring to defraud and sentenced to a fine of Le. 1000 or six months imprisonment on each count, the terms of imprisonment to run consecutively, | tad the fines to be paid cumulatively. | . Thave been able to extract the following facts for the case, from the judgment of the trial court. The prosecution have alleged that Aureol Trading | Investment Co, Ltd. a Company incorporated under the laws of Sierra Leone as Consumers unlawfully purchased 900 gallons of kerosene and 900 galls of petrol } from Shell (S.L.) Ltd. under invoice No.89353 of July 1, 1986, the company then | _Uwlawfully sold the said quantity of kerosene and petrol at a profit; to companies nd persons with ii customers; and that the | Ay with rights to purchase petroleum qua . | Pellant and some know persons together with some others who were unknown | ‘"spired together to carry out this act, thus depriving companies and persons as ight be caused loss, istng, Jhete is no doubt whatsoever that the gravamen of the Respondent's case | {ist Aureol Trading & Investment Company caused a breach inthe law by conn’ ettoleum products and selling them ata price over and above Ihe ine lled price, that their agreement had the tendency to frustrate the a °F OF purpose of the states.

- Yi ! os -T 182 of the Records line 6 1! A arp? he learned judge in his judgment “The prosecution’s case that by the we by Aureol Trading Investment Co, Hye Purchasing quantities of petroleum products of various they thereby caused economic om ea SL) La by depriving them of their Tights ton Persons and companies products to persons and compani Purchase the same regulated price. eS at a price in excess of the That by the various acts . f the accused tigtied teat they mad d inoke eee oe about this evil Purpose common between them out this evil consequence. The unlawful purpose coomlenet of is that by virtue of Rule 30 & 31 of the Petroleum Sie nis povided tht peroken (ta is dangers premise should not be kept for use or for sale in certain quis wie astore licence. That under Rule 31 Class C icone shouldbe contained to keep petroleum in quantity exceeding two ed gallons without a store licence. ‘Thet having so brought these products, they resold them at a price far in excess of the Government regulated price. That this Company was selling at the price of Le.35.50 per gallon of petrol, and Le. 37.30 per gallon of diesel oil when the controlled price for these products were Le.50 per gallon for petrol, and Le.28 per kerosene ‘That Shell (S.L.) Ltd. were selling to its customers at discount of 80 cents per gallon with free transportation from Shell to the premises of the customers, except that there is no discount for consumers, but there is still transportation.”

___ Its quite clear from this passage from the judgment, thatthe p osecution | inthe Court below was saying that the Appella’ ‘and others agreed to sel Price | controlled goods (petroleum) at a price in excess of the permitted price.

‘The learned judge in his judgm ent relied on the presumption that the

Aetna had breach Rules hs da ofthe Petroleum Rules Cx? 236 eee

Laws of Sierra Leone. ‘The Appellants were not marge with contravening NS

offences, and they were not mentioned at all in the Indictment, nor ever ET words of he Sra followed in any ofthe sever! CDRS

| cane a ‘Conspiracy the actual

| ____ I think it is pertinent for me to say that in 2. c2se slic!

| Victims of the conspiracy need not be called by the poser juced to enable Pericularties must be given in the charBe OF by the evidens

n and a Jury to know the nature of the we see iin “enocbed tobe deniie, an viet

‘The learned judge also stated in his judgment that -

“From the acts and activities of the 1*, 3d and 4* accused (the Appellants herein) there is manifest evidence on which one can safely and reasonably infer an agreement between them to bring about their evil result. It is reasonable to infer from their conduct in the ‘whole petroleum transaction that they were perpetrating a diabolical scheme by fraudulent and dishonest devise to cause economic suffering on the petroleum consuming public by depriving them of their right to purchase petroleum qua customers of Shell as to how and when they so desire.

The 1* and 4 accused ........-.0-s:-00+ were actively employed in procuring purchases and to facilitate the purchasing of the products by Aureol from Shell. Whilst the 3° sat peacefully in his office disposing of those products at exorbitant price.”

‘Now the agreement complained about by the prosecution must be of a specific nature known to the law, it is a matter of, ‘judgment of opinion than of obvious law. The prosecution in the court below was saying that the Appellants and others agreed to sell price - controlled goods (petroleum) at a price in excess of the permitted prices.

‘The appellant has on the other hand, later applied to this court that the Indictment discloses no offence known to the laws of Sierra Leone His ‘amended grounds of Appeal read:

(1) That the Indictment with a several Particulars of offence discloses no offence known to the laws of Sierra Leone.

(@) “The offence stated as ‘Conspiracy to defraud’ is based,

according to the ‘Particulars ‘of Offence” on conspiracy “by the unlawful purchasing by ‘Amal Trading and Investment Company Limited, a Company incorporated in Sierra Leone Limited ......- and unlawful selling the same ...... &c &c &e.” Such Particulars expressly indicate contractual relationship between two separate canes’ , | personalities, and the offence of conspiracy has not yet DEE" | tatended to embrace such contractual relationshiPs Further, i"

the said ‘Particulars’ indicate the the context of ‘unlawful purchasing’ asc of the offence in tlassifiation created by Shell for its pelo pri i on and not recognised by any laws of Sierra Leor ganisatvon, () The learned trial judge based his conviction Pahers) on the applicability of certain peucdekrs Appellant (and fnstruments, to Wit, Rule 30 and 31 of Ou Witioun Rel under Cap. oH Cone of Goods Ac Cap 28 Ce wage 182, ines 6 et sq) which do nt support the 22, (ile ny offence as laid in the ‘Particulars’, and stich sid ire ¢ ‘nowhere mentioned in the Indictment, “either wticared implication.” either expressly or even by ttis wrong for a judge to add to the criminal law, or punish a person whether or not getting in agreement with others to do any wich ‘are most prohibited by @ statute or common law. Furthermore the conduct of the Appellants shows no trace of illegality, dishonesty, fraud or deception. Superintendent of Police and Second in Command to the Chief Police Officer Western Area Mr. Seth “amadofor who was called by the prosecution said under cross-examination “my investigations also revealed that Aureol Trading Company paid for such petroleum product | on each of those invoices (Ex. BB-00). I received no complaints from Shell regarding the payment for those consignments. My investigations did not reveal anything out of the ordinary in the Books of Shell Co.”

The question now is How did the purchasing and selling of these petroleum products by ‘Aureol Trading ‘Company become unlawful? Were such Purchasing or selling prohibited by @ Statute? As I said earlier on “to effect dbjects prohibited by a Statute it zg sufficient to follow the ‘words of the Statute St ee each in any charge brought sens the person accused” Hind

| 10 such reference in this matter. . i | Having sad allthis mst say that 120 ot agree wit leaned co | oa tet eerie pipiens acae pound to say thatthe FANS consider the ther as charged. I must say that it is not necessary ‘ground of appeal.

ey Uo

qe appeal i upheld.

‘The convietion and sentence are set aside, and if the appellant has paid pyortte fines imposed on him such fines are to be refunded to him aecordinel-

Hon, Mr, Justice E.C. Thompson-Davis, S.C ed hn LY

Hon. Mr. Justice M.O. Adophy, J. A.

Hon. Mf Justice AB. Timbo, J.A.