-Claim conviction was built on suspicion
IN 1961, the Federal Supreme Court upturned a High Court jury guilty verdict of larceny and forgery, thereby allowing the accused to go free on the grounds that the prosecution’s evidence supporting guilt was based on suspicion. The appellant, Meerabux, was indicted for larceny of a cheque book. The indictment also contained counts against him and two other appellants, namely Thomas and Seales, for forgery and the uttering of two cheques, and obtaining money upon the forged cheques.
He was acquitted of the charges of uttering and obtaining money, but convicted of larceny and forgery.
According to the facts at hand, the police intercepted a sum of money which Meerabux had give to one ‘JC’. He was subsequently taken to the Police Station and questioned, whereupon he told the police that one ‘R’ had given the money to him for safekeeping. He was detained at the station, and the following evening, he gave another statement in which he repeated that ‘R’ had given him the money to keep. He was still kept in custody.
On the following evening, he was again questioned. He was then confronted with ‘R’, who denied that he had ever given the appellant money to keep. On further questioning, the appellant made no admission. A recording machine was then brought in and a conversation between the appellant and ‘R’ six days previously was heard when the machine was switched on. The appellant then admitted that the two statements he had given were untrue. He subsequently gave a statement admitting his guilt.
The Federal Supreme Court, constituted by Chief Justice Gomes and Justices of Appeal Wylie and Lewis, held that “… the appellant must have given the third statement in order to secure his release; [that] it was not free and voluntary and was therefore inadmissible.”
This being the case, the appeal was allowed.
Queen’s Counsel, Mr. Fred Wills appeared for the appellant, Meerabux, while Messrs. E.A. Romao and D. Singh, both lawyers, represented the Crown.
Justice Gomes, who delivered the judgment of the court, noted that the three appellants were tried on charges arising out of the disappearance of a cheque book containing 187 cheque forms from the Medical Department of the Government of British Guiana on July 25, 1959, and the subsequent presentation to the bank for payment, on August 26, 1959, of two cheques, which, the evidence showed, came from that bank.
According to Justice Gomes, Meerabux was convicted of larceny of a cheque book, a charge preferred against him alone, and on two charges of forgery, one in respect of each of the two cheques presented for payment.
Meerabux was found not guilty on two charges of uttering the cheques, and two charges of obtaining money upon a forged instrument, said charges being in respect of the presentation of the two cheques for payment at the bank. The other two appellants were jointly indicted and tried with Meerabux on all these charges except the charge of larceny. The appellant, Thomas was found not guilty on the two charges of forgery, but guilty on the charges of uttering and of obtaining money.
The appellant, Seales was found guilty of all six charges brought against him.
Said Justice Gomes: “All three appellants have appealed against their convictions and sentences on a number of grounds, some of which were not pursued before this court. The remaining grounds are referred to later in this judgment.”
The evidence established that the cheque-book was kept in the custody of one Benjamin , a clerk in the Medical Department, who, in 1950, was cashier in the Mosquito Control Section of the department. He was issued with the cheque-book in connection with his duties as cashier, and kept it in a safe.
Benjamin stated in evidence that on the morning of July 25, on arrival at work , he opened his safe, checked the contents and saw that the cheque-book was there. He then locked his safe again. He said that at about 8:30am, the appellant Meerabux came to him and told him that he had heard Benjamin was to be transferred and Meerabux named as his successor.
Meerabux asked Benjamin to show him his work. In the course of doing this, Benjamin opened the safe in the presence of the appellant and the two checked the contents. At one stage, Benjamin left t the appellant alone at the safe for a short period.
While Benjamin was showing the appellant other aspects of his work , according to Benjamin, the appellant told him not to look around as he (the appellant) did not want others to know that Benjamin was showing him his work.
At about 9am, the appellant returned to Benjamin with two parcels in large official envelopes containing books, which he asked Benjamin to keep in his safe because the appellant’s safe was full. Benjamin enquired if there were any cheque-books in the parcels.
When the appellant said there were, Benjamin said this would require the accountant’s approval, but the appellant asked him to dispense with this because he (the appellant) did not get on with the accountant.
At about 10am, the appellant again returned and asked for the two cheque- books. Benjamin opened the safe and handed the two parcels to the appellant, who took out the cheque-books. The appellant said he would return for the parcels about 11am, but, at about 11:30am, he sent a labourer named Swami who had called on the appellant to be paid, to collect the parcels.
“When Benjamin took out the parcels,” Justice Gomes said, “he discovered his own cheque-book was missing , put the parcels back in the safe and, after searching for his cheque-book (including checking with the appellant and searching the latter’s safe ), he reported the loss.” None of the cheques was ever recovered, except the two presented for payment.
During the search, Benjamin found his bank deposit book was also missing, and that also has never been recovered. In cross-examination, Benjamin said that he had gone to the safe several times in the course of his duties that morning. There were three other employees working in Benjamin’s office.
In his statement from the dock, the appellant does not refer to the incident of July 25 at all. In three statements made in the course of departmental and police enquiries, the appellant states that he remembered later there were two cheque books in the parcels, and he then went back and took out the cheque, opening and closing up the parcels on the floor. He does not refer to any earlier meeting, as related by Benjamin, when the latter showed him his work.
After referring to other aspects of the case, Chief Justice Gomes said: “In our view, the circumstances related above must have operated on the appellant’s mind to induce him to make a further statement in retraction to his two prior statements , in order to secure his release.
“We do not agree with the leaned trial judge that the caution which he found was admitted immediately before the statement was reduced into writing was sufficient in the circumstances to dissipate this improper inducement.
“It certainly had the desired effect, for the appellant made the third statement, and the significant fact is that he was released as soon as he made it, when, apparently, all the other reasons that had been given for his detention disappeared.
“In these circumstances, we fail to see how it can be maintained that the statement was admissible as a free and voluntary statement. In our view, it was not.
“Agreeing as we do with the submissions of counsel for appellant in regard to the conclusion or inference to be made from the jury’s verdict, there only remains for consideration the question whether there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction for larceny.
“We have carefully examined the remainder of the evidence that was adduced on the count of larceny of the cheque book, and we have also considered the facts and circumstances which were advanced in argument by Counsel for the Crown in support of the conviction, and we have come to the conclusion that while they amount to a strong suspicion that the appellant was the thief , the facts proved do not, in our view, establish that convincing degree of proof which is necessary for a conviction, and, of course, a person cannot be convicted on suspicion alone.”
“The conviction for larceny must therefore be quashed and, as the reasons which we have given above apply equally to the charges for forgery, the conviction for forgery must also be set aside,” Chief Justice Gomes said as he allowed the appeal on behalf of the court.
Supreme Court frees civil servant on larceny, forgery charges
SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp