EMEREHAOLE V. THE QUEEN

• Pages: 75-77

EMEREHAOLE V. THE QUEEN



75

EMEREHAOLE V. THE QUEEN

5

EMMANUEL EMEREHAOLE

V

10 THE QUEEN

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



Ag. C.J.F.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

15



COKER,



Ag. F.J.

15th February, 1963.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO.FSC 349/1962

Criminal Law and Procedure - Prima facie case - Prosecution Evidence not

tending to establish negligence rather than fraud.

20

ISSUE:

1.

Whether at the stage of ruling on a no case submission it is open to a trial court

to speculate whether the evidence before him disclosed fraud or negligence

where the facts showed that an accused person had a duty to perform which

25



he failed to do.

2.

Can a co-accused's evidence be admitted against an accused person, where

a

prima facie

case is made against the accused at the close of the evidence

for the prosecution.

FACTS:

30



The appellant paid out £119 too much on the strength of a paysheet prepared

and submitted to him by his co-accused, and which bore obvious alterations; it

was the appellant's duty to check :he paysheet, and he certified that he had

checked it and found it correct; the amount over paid disappeared.

The appellant rested on his submission of no case to answer, which the judge

35



over-ruled; his co-accused gave evicience implicating him and the trial judge took

(inter alia)

this evidence into consideration in convicting the appellant of conspir-

acy, stealing and making false claims.

The point on appeal was whether, at the close of the evidence for the prosecu-

tion there was a

prima facie

case against the appellant; it was agreed that if there

40



was, his co-accused's evidence was admissible against him.

HELD:

1.

The prosecution evidence showed that the appellant had a duty to check the

paysheet and that ostensibly he had done so, and it was not for the trial court

to speculate at that stage whether it was a case of fraud or negligence on his

45



part; and as there was nothing tending to establish neglect of duty rather than

fraud, there was a prima facie case for the appellant to answer.

2.

If a judge is right in holding that an accused person has a case to answer, he

is entitled to take the evidence of a co-accused into consideration as against

the accused appellant.

50

[As to evidence of co-accused, see 11 HALSBURY'S LAWS 4th Edition 280

para 466.]

C.A.

Oputa

for the appellant.