LAYONU & ORS. V. THE STATE

• Pages: 194-198

194



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

LAYONU & ORS. V. THE STATE



5

LAYONU AND OTHERS



APPELLANTS

V

THE STATE



RESPONDENTS



10

SUIT NO. SC 582/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.



15

9th June, 1967

Criminal Law - murder - Evidence Act, ss.198, 209 - Statement of prosecution

witness to police - Defendant's right to production and scope of use - Appeal

Court's approach re credibility where application to produce witness' previous



20

statements improperly refilsed.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a defendant has a right to see any written statement in possession of

the prosecution made by a prosecution witness, to cross-examine thereon,



25

and then tender it.

2.

What must be taken into consideration in a criminal appeal where the production

of the written statements in possession of the prosecution were improperly

refused by the trial Judge?

FACTS:



30

The four appellants along with five others were charged with murder. The other

five were acquitted, the four appellants were convicted.

At the commencement of the trial, defence counsel made an application that

statements made to the police in connection with the case be produced. The

prosecuting counsel signified his willingness to produce only those statements



35

made by prosecution witnesses - though only when it was time to cross-examine

them - but the trial judge cited a passage the head note to

R. v.Clarke (infra)

and

ruled that the defence must first establish that there were discrepancies between

such witnesses previous statements to the police and their testimony before such

production and he refused the application.



40

The four appel,ants were convicted on the strength of the evidence of two eye-

witnesses, each of whom identified the appellants as having been involved in the

attack on the deceased.

On appeal, the defendants contended that they had been deprived of the op-

portunity of testing the stories of these witnesses against their previous statements



45

to the police, and further after an adjournment enabling copies of these statements

to be supplied, that there were sufficient discrepancies between the statements and

the evidence of the two witnesses to make it unsafe to confirm the conviction.

The Supreme Court was satisfied that there were some discrepancies which

might possibly have raised a doubt in the trial Judge's mind in regard to the ident-



50

ification of two of the appellants.