[1993] KECA 68 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that since the police knew the items were stolen and the owner was identified, it was improper to charge the appellant under section 323 of the Penal Code for conveying property suspected to have been stolen. The correct charge should have been theft or handling stolen property. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1993] KECA 68 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Patrick Siana; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 67 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; order for fresh charge
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Guilty, Alternative Charge, Possession of Stolen Property, Onus of Proof, Unlawful Conviction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patrick Siana
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly entered.
- 2 Whether conviction under section 323 of the Penal Code was lawful where ownership and theft of property were known.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that since the police knew the items were stolen and the owner was identified, it was improper to charge the appellant under section 323 of the Penal Code for conveying property suspected to have been stolen. The correct charge should have been theft or handling stolen property. The court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the unlawfulness of the conviction on the alternative charge. The plea of guilty was properly taken, but the conviction itself was not sustainable in law given the facts known to the prosecution at the time of charging. The conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside, with an order for the appellant to be charged...
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; order for fresh charge
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT MOMBASA
(Coram: Kwach, Omolo & Akiwumi JJ A)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 1993
PATRICK SIANA ……….………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC………………………RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
(Mr Justice Wambilyanga) dated 9th July, 1993,
in HC CR A No 202 of 1993)
JUDGMENT
Patrick Siana (the appellant) was convicted by the Resident Magistrate, Kwale, on his own plea of guilty of the alternative charge of conveying property suspected to have been stolen contrary to section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. His appeal to the superior court against both conviction and sentence was dismissed by Wambilyanga, J on 9th June, 1993, and he now appeals to this Court.
At dawn, on the material day, the police acting on information received, tried to stop a vehicle in which the appellant and another person were travelling at Vinuni in Kwale. The driver refused to stop and the police gave chase. At Matuga, the vehicle stopped and the occupants jumped out and started running. In the process they dropped the luggage which they were carrying which on inspection were found to be a television set and a radio which had already been reported stolen (underlining ours).
When the prosecutor had outlined the facts, the appellant admitted that they were true and conviction followed. It is now being contended on behalf of the appellant first, that the plea was not unequivocal and, secondly, that the conviction on the alternate charge was unlawful.
As regards the plea, we are satisfied that the appellant fully understood the charge and the facts which he admitted and that both the plea and conviction were taken and entered in accordance with the guidelines set down in the case of Adan v Republic[1973] EA 445. There is no substance in this ground of appeal.
On the second ground of appeal, it was Mr Magolo’s submission that the conviction under section 323 of the Penal Code was unlawful because, at the time the appellant was stopped on 7th May, 1993, and also when his plea was taken on 12th May, 1993, the police already knew that the two items had been stolen and the real owner Sidan Water Project, was known. In the circumstances, he submitted, the question of the of the items being reasonably suspected of being stolen could not arise and the appellant should have been charged either with theft or handling stolen property. We think there is considerable merit in this submission. In the case of Mohammed v Republic[1971] EA 42, the appellant was charged with stock theft and in the alternative with possession of stock which may be reasonably suspected of having been stolen. At the time of the charge it was known who the stock belonged to and that it had been stolen. The appellant was convicted on the alternative count and appealed. It was held by the Court of Appeal for East Africa, allowing the appeal, inter alia, that the charge of possession of property reasonably suspected of having ben stolen should never be made where a charge of stealing or receiving could be made. At page 45 – A, the Court said:
“It seems to us that the provision which relate to reasonable suspicion should never be invoked where a charge of stealing or receiving could be laid. The general rule in criminal matters is that the onus of proof is on the prosecution. In certain limited classes of cases the Legislature has, for good reason, placed the onus of proof on the accused, but such provisions should not be used outside the circumstances for which they were intended. We think that where evidence is available to prove ownership and the theft of any property it is clearly wrong to rely on them.”
We respectfully endorse and adopt this statement of principles. As the goods were known to have been stolen and the police knew who the owner was, it was not open to them to lay a charge under section 323 of the Penal Code. The appellant should have been charged with either theft or handling stolen property. Consequently, we allow this appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. In the interests of justice we order that the appellant be arrested and charged with the charge disclosed by the facts.
Dated and Delivered at Mombasa this 28th day of July, 1993
R.O. KWACH
………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
R.S.C OMOLO
………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.K. AKIWUMI
………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL