godlisten raymond another vs republic 2015 tzca 155 9 june 2015

godlisten raymond another vs republic 2015 tzca 155 9 june 2015

The 1st appellant was not properly identified as the person who performed the abortion; the identification evidence and parade were unreliable and improperly conducted. The 2nd appellant, by procuring the abortion and admitting responsibility for the pregnancy, is criminally liable as a principal under section 22 of the Penal Code, despite the acquittal of the alleged principal offender.

Citation
godlisten raymond another vs republic 2015 tzca 155 9 june 2015
Parties
Appellant: Godlisten Raymond; Appellant: Adam Shaban Hole; Respondent: The Republic
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
9 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
1st appellant's appeal allowed; conviction quashed and sentence set aside. 2nd appellant's appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Identification Evidence, Abortion, Dying Declaration, Alibi, Identification Parade, Accessory Liability
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Manslaughter Identification Evidence Abortion Dying Declaration Alibi Identification Parade Accessory Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godlisten Raymond

Appellant

Adam Shaban Hole

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st appellant was correctly identified as the person who performed the abortion leading to death
  2. 2 Whether the identification parade was properly conducted
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd appellant was involved in procuring the abortion and is criminally liable as a principal or accessory

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st appellant was not properly identified as the person who performed the abortion; the identification evidence and parade were unreliable and improperly conducted. The 2nd appellant, by procuring the abortion and admitting responsibility for the pregnancy, is criminally liable as a principal under section 22 of the Penal Code, despite the acquittal of the alleged principal offender.

Court Disposition

1st appellant's appeal allowed; conviction quashed and sentence set aside. 2nd appellant's appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Orders

  • Immediate release of the 1st appellant unless held for another lawful cause
  • 2nd appellant to continue serving sentence