Bockarie v The State (CR APP 7/2000) 2008 SLCA 51
Case Name:
Bockarie v The State (CR APP 7/2000) 2008 SLCA 51
Court:
Court of Appeal of Sierra Leone
Judges:
– Hon Mr. Justice Bode Rhodes Vivour, JSC
– Hon Mr. Justice P.O. Hamilton, JA
– Hon Mr. Justice N.C. Browne-Marke, JA
Date of Judgment:
17 April 2008
Appellant:
Soluku Jermill Bockarie
Respondent:
The State
Case Summary
The appellant, Soluku Jermill Bockarie, was convicted of larceny contrary to Section 17(2)(a) of the Larceny Act, 1916 by the High Court of Sierra Leone.
The conviction was based on allegations that he, while serving as a clerk or servant to the Government of Sierra Leone, stole a substantial sum of money, Le294,433,411/00, between 1st and 30th June 1999.
The appellant contested the conviction on several grounds, leading to an appeal. The appeal raised issues regarding the burden of proof, the adequacy of the trial court’s consideration of the appellant’s case, and the validity of the indictment.
Grounds of Appeal
The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal, which were progressively added during the appeal process. Initially, five grounds were presented, with an additional three introduced later, and a ninth ground added in January 2008. The main issues included:
1. Misdirection on Burden and Standard of Proof:
The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to apply the correct burden and standard of proof, particularly in a criminal case where the principle established in Woolmington v DPP should have been applied. The trial judge’s misapplication led to a wrongful conviction.
2. Failure to Consider the Appellant’s Case:
It was contended that the trial court did not adequately consider the defense presented by the appellant, including evidence that contradicted the prosecution’s case.
3. Validity of the Indictment:
The appellant challenged the indictment, asserting that it was legally flawed because it charged a lump sum of stolen money without specifying particular amounts or dates. This, according to the appellant, resulted in a lack of clarity and precision necessary for a valid conviction under the law.
4. Unreasonableness of the Verdict:
The appellant argued that the conviction was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented at trial.
The Trial
The trial of Soluku Jermill Bockarie was marked by several irregularities. Notably, the prosecution’s evidence appeared disjointed and inconsistent, raising concerns about whether the prosecution had a clear and cohesive case from the outset. The appellant’s indictment charged him with stealing a lump sum of Le294,433,411/00, but the evidence revealed that the money was obtained through multiple transactions on different dates, which were not properly reflected in the indictment.
The trial was further complicated by the fact that the trial judge eventually recused himself, leading to a change in the presiding judge mid-trial. Despite these issues, the trial proceeded, and the appellant was convicted based on the aggregate sum, without proper consideration of the discrepancies in the prosecution’s case.
Key Issues on Appeal
Duplicity of the Charge:
One of the central issues in the appeal was whether the charge against the appellant was duplicitous. The charge referenced a lump sum stolen on a day unknown between two dates, despite the evidence showing that the money was stolen over multiple days. This raised the question of whether it was lawful to convict the appellant based on such a general and imprecise indictment.
Application of Legal Principles:
The appeal also examined whether the trial court correctly applied the legal principles concerning the burden of proof in criminal cases. The appellant argued that the trial judge erroneously limited the application of the principle in Woolmington v DPP to cases of murder or manslaughter, instead of applying it broadly to all criminal cases.
Prosecution’s Case:
The appeal highlighted the inconsistency and lack of cohesiveness in the prosecution’s case. The prosecution relied on evidence that suggested the money was stolen on specific dates, yet failed to amend the indictment to reflect this, resulting in a mismatch between the charge and the evidence.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal, led by Hon Mr. Justice N.C. Browne-Marke, ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court found that the indictment was fundamentally flawed and could not support a conviction for larceny under the Larceny Act, 1916.
Quotations from the Judgment:
– On the issue of the indictment:
“The Indictment as it stands, is insupportable in law, and cannot ground a conviction for Larceny under the Larceny Act,1916.”
– On the burden of proof
“The legal burden of proof in a criminal case always rests on the prosecution, and that it never shifts; and that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove every element of the offence with which an accused person has been charged beyond a reasonable doubt.”
– On the prosecution’s case:
“The evidence points in the opposite direction. There is credible evidence that the Appellant did, in his capacity as an employee of the Government of Sierra Leone, receive the various amounts of money… But rather unfortunately, he is not charged with the larceny of these individual amounts.”
Conclusion
The appeal in Bockarie v The State serves as a critical reminder of the importance of precision in criminal indictments and the application of legal principles regarding the burden of proof. The Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the conviction underscores the necessity for the prosecution to present a clear and consistent case, supported by a legally sound indictment.
DOWNLOAD THE FULL CASE HERE