79
The High Court allowed an appeal against armed robbery, finding the evidence proved theft but not the use or threat of violence with a weapon.
- Armed robbery
- Theft
- Evidence evaluation
- Conviction substitution
- Armed-robbery
- Criminal-appeal
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court allowed an appeal against armed robbery, finding the evidence proved theft but not the use or threat of violence with a weapon.
The High Court substituted armed robbery convictions with burglary where the evidence showed unlawful entry at night, but no proof the appellants were armed.
The conviction for possession of property suspected to have been stolen was quashed because the property was clearly identified as stolen, and a conviction for theft was substituted. The appellant's defense was not credible, and the doctrine of recent possession applied.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld a conviction after finding the facts supported obtaining money by false pretences, not stealing by agent, and left the one-year sentence in place.
The High Court quashed a conviction for stealing by agent, holding the substituted conviction was unsustainable and that the accused lacked the requisite intent.
The High Court allowed the appeal in part, quashed burglary and stealing convictions, and substituted a conviction for receiving stolen property based on possession of a stolen shirt.
The High Court set aside a conviction under Penal Code section 312, substituting a conviction under section 311(1) for receiving stolen property, while upholding a three-year sentence.
The High Court upheld a stealing conviction but set aside burglary because the evidence showed the offence occurred before dark.
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal in part, quashing burglary and substituting entering, while leaving the stealing conviction and reducing the sentence.
The High Court upheld a conviction for stealing by a public servant but reduced a six-year sentence to three years, holding the wrong section cited was a curable error.
Explore more