CASE TITLE: JOSEPH v. STATE (2022) LPELR-58915(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST NOVEMBER, 2022
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.
FACTS:
Upon the grant of an application seeking for leave to prefer a charge, the Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Justice of Kaduna on a three-count charge of conspiracy, armed robbery and receiving of stolen property.
At the trial Court, the charge was brought against the 1st- 4th defendants and upon their arraignment, they all entered a plea of not guilty.
The learned trial Judge went ahead to evaluate the evidence before him and then concluded that the prosecution failed to proffer any single direct and cogent evidence linking the 4th defendant who is the Appellant herein, to count one and two of the charge. The learned trial Judge further stated that the only evidence the Prosecution had against the 4th Defendant/Appellant was his confessional statement which has been retracted on the ground of involuntariness.
Consequently, the learned trial Judge then went ahead to convict the 1st – 3rd defendants of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and they were sentenced to death accordingly.
The Appellant was however convicted of count three of the charge and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES:
The appeal was determined on the following issues viz:
“(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in relying on the provisions of the Administration of criminal justice law of Kaduna 2017, a law which came into force after the filing of the Charge and subsequent arraignment of the Appellant in admitting Exhibit 7 (the Appellant’s purported confessional statement) and subsequently convicting the Appellant on the basis of same.
(2) Whether having regard to the totality of the evidence led by the prosecution and the contents of the documentary evidence tendered, it can be said that the Prosecution has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the offence of receiving a robbed property against the Appellant as contained in Count 3 of the charge sheet.
(3) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the Appellant for the offence of receiving a robbed property as contained in Count 3 of the charge sheet solely on the uncorroborated and retracted confessional statement of the Appellant.”
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the appeal was allowed, and the Appellant was discharged and acquitted.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Instance(s) when an Appellate Court will/will not interfere with the evaluation of evidence of a Lower Court
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS/PROPERTY: What the prosecution must prove to establish the offence of receiving stolen property
- EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Whether an accused person who claims to have involuntarily signed a document/confessional statement will be presumed to have raised the involuntariness of the same
- EVIDENCE – TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL: Whether a trial-within-trial is a form of procedural law to which the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Kaduna State apply retrospectively
