godlisten raymond another vs republic 2015 tzca 431 9 june 2015

godlisten raymond another vs republic 2015 tzca 431 9 june 2015

The 1st appellant was not properly identified as the person who performed the abortion due to insufficient description and flawed identification procedures, making his conviction unsafe. The 2nd appellant, however, was proved to have procured the abortion and is criminally liable as a principal under section 22 of the Penal Code, regardless of the acquittal of the alleged principal offender.

Citation
godlisten raymond another vs republic 2015 tzca 431 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 / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
1st appellant's appeal allowed; conviction quashed and sentence set aside; immediate release ordered unless held for other lawful cause. 2nd appellant's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Identification Evidence, Abortion, Procurement of Offence, Dying Declaration, Alibi, Identification Parade
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Manslaughter Identification Evidence Abortion Procurement of Offence Dying Declaration Alibi Identification Parade

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 / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st appellant was correctly identified as the doctor who conducted 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

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st appellant was not properly identified as the person who performed the abortion due to insufficient description and flawed identification procedures, making his conviction unsafe. The 2nd appellant, however, was proved to have procured the abortion and is criminally liable as a principal under section 22 of the Penal Code, regardless of the acquittal of the alleged principal offender.

Court Disposition

1st appellant's appeal allowed; conviction quashed and sentence set aside; immediate release ordered unless held for other lawful cause. 2nd appellant's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • 1st appellant to be released immediately unless lawfully held for another cause.
  • 2nd appellant's conviction and sentence upheld.