HOW TO PROVE THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

DONDOS v. STATE (2021) LPELR-53380(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 29TH JANUARY, 2021

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the offence of Armed Robbery.

FACTS

The appellant herein was the 2nd accused person at the trial Court along with two other accused persons who were charged and arraigned on a two-count charge of armed robbery committed on the 30th day of January 2002 and in April 2002.

In proof of his case at the trial Court, the prosecution called a number of witnesses in the main trial and during the trial within trial.

The recorded statement of the Appellant which is referred to as Exhibit ‘B’ was confirmed by the Appellant as the statement he made to the Police when he was cross-examined. Though the Appellant later denied the said confessional statement, after a comprehensive trial within trial to determine the admissibility of the said confessional statement, the trial court said it found no evidence to contradict the prosecution’s testimony that the confessional statement was obtained voluntarily, consequently, same was admitted in evidence.

The accused/appellant was convicted for the offence of Armed Robbery under Section 1 (2) (a) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap 398 LFN 1990, by the trial Court.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court below found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same, affirming the conviction and sentence. Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The appeal was determined on a lone issue viz:

Whether having regards to the available evidence and the entire circumstance surrounding the matter, the lower Court was right to affirm the decision of the trial Court in this matter.

DECISION/HELD

On the whole, the Supreme Court held that there was merit in the appeal and same was accordingly allowed. Consequent upon this, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision, conviction and sentence of the trial Court. The Appellant was discharged and acquitted.

RATIOS:

• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY: Ingredients required to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence of armed robbery; ways of proving the offence of armed robbery
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- CONVICTION: Whether conviction must be based on proof of offence beyond reasonable doubt
• EVIDENCE- CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Effect of an inducement, threat or promise on a confessional statement; Conditions to be satisfied for an inducement, threat or promise to make a confessional statement irrelevant and inadmissible
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Instances where the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact(s) by Lower Courts