SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
FODAY B.M SAWI
V
THE STATE
CORAM
HONOURABLE JUSTICE: D.E.F LUKE
HONOURABLE JUSTICE: A.B TIMBO
HONOURABLE JUSTICE: H.M JOKO SMART
HONOURABLE JUSTICE: S.C.E WARNE
HONOURABLE JUSTICE V.A.D WRIGHT
COUNSELS
APPELLANT: O.V ROBIN MASON
RESPONDENT : S.A. BAH
SC.CR.APP.NO.1/93
JUDGEMENT DATED 24TH OCTOBER 2000
FACTS
The Appellant in this case was the permanent secretary at the Ministry of works. He was in charge of the Daru Rest house project. In May, while the construction was ongoing he instructed that the furniture purchased for the project be sent to his official resident rather than the Government store for safe keeping. In August the matter was reported to the police in Freetown for which they found the furniture was offloaded not too far from his official resident, the pieces of furniture were however untouched and not installed in the Appellant’s house. He was arraigned on a two count indictment in the Freetown High Court for the offences of larceny and fraudulent conversion contrary to the Public Economy Emergency Regulations 1987. The trial judge , William Johnson J held that he was guilty of both counts and he was sentenced to le 400,000 fine or 10 years imprisonment for the charge of larceny and 1 year imprisonment on count 2 for which both terms of imprisonment are to run consecutively. He Appealed on both counts. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal on the second court and quashed the conviction . The court of Appeal was however divided in respect of the first count and stayed his conviction . He then appealed to the supreme Court that the Court of Appeal failed to apply the proper test relating to the intent to deprive permanently as provided in the larceny Act.
ISSUES
1. Whether the defendant at the time of handling the property, had dealt with it in a manner in order to deprive the Government of Sierra Leone permanently.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal had properly applied the principles of law relating to the crime alleged.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the Appellant had intended to deprive the Government of Sierra Leone permanently of the ownership of the furniture. They made their decision on the basis that though there was indeed asportation of the furniture, the necessary mens rea which is to deprive permanently as provided in the Larceny Act 1916, was not sufficiently proved. This was because the furniture was untouched and the testimony from the witnesses showed that the furniture was placed at his personal residence for safe keeping.
ANALYSIS
This case portrays the fundamental principles of criminal law for the commission of an offence which is the presence of the actus reus and mens rea. A decision otherwise without evidence would have led to making this alleged crime one of strict liability and hence an exception to the general rule governing criminal liability. This would seem the case upon proper consideration of Section 38(a) of the Public Economic Emergency Regulations 1987 (P.N No. 25 of 1987). However, upon considering the crime with which the accused was charged which was larceny, it was prudent of the judges to look at the meaning of larceny and the elements to be proved. If that had not been done, it would have been difficult to support in law that the offence of larceny required a mental element if not for the entire population, but for government workers, thus giving the law a dual meaning and interpretation.
Written by: Naomi Mudiatu Mansaray.
Edited by: C.M Jonah