|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2014 |
|
|
Accused convicted of embezzlement, forgery and uttering; concurrent custodial sentences and restitution ordered.
* Criminal law – Embezzlement – elements: existence of company, employee status, access by virtue of office, misappropriation of funds, and proof by audit and bank records.
* Criminal law – Forgery – false document defined; receipts purporting to originate from supplier found not to originate and declared forged; possession and silence raising presumption of authorship.
* Criminal law – Uttering – intentionally inducing another to act on forged documents proven where forged receipts were presented as proof of payment.
* Evidence – Circumstantial evidence and audit findings sufficient where direct proof lacking; burden remains on prosecution; accused’s silence on facts within his knowledge relevant under s.105 Evidence Act.
* Sentencing – custodial sentence and restitution appropriate given scale of loss and deterrence considerations.
|
20 December 2014 |
| November 2014 |
|
|
The appellant’s embezzlement conviction and refund order affirmed; unauthorized employee payment to a third party does not negate embezzlement.
* Criminal law – Embezzlement – Employee and signatory to employer’s bank account withdraws funds and pays a third party without authorization – unauthorized payment constitutes embezzlement.
* Evidence – Proof of ownership/entitlement – bank account signatories as prima facie owners; minor typographical discrepancies not fatal where no prejudice shown.
* Employment – oral employment sufficient to establish employee status for embezzlement charge.
* Sentencing – sentencing discretion; refund order obligatory on conviction.
|
10 November 2014 |
|
Appeal against embezzlement and financial-loss convictions dismissed; evidence sufficient and sentence upheld.
Criminal appeal – embezzlement and causing financial loss – sufficiency of evidence – late tendering of exhibits – right to legal representation in magistrates' courts – cross-examination – sentence proportionality.
|
10 November 2014 |
|
Town clerk lacked authority and improperly awarded public contracts; convictions for abuse of office and corruption upheld.
Criminal law – Abuse of office and corruption – Award of public contracts to different entity than approved; Procurement law – authority to communicate tender awards under Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006; Appellate review – evaluation of evidence and upholding trial court findings.
|
10 November 2014 |
|
Conviction for embezzlement quashed for failure to prove employment, misappropriation and lack of forensic linkage.
* Criminal law – Embezzlement – elements: employment, misappropriation, access by virtue of employment – requirement proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Evidence – burden of proof on prosecution – need for documentary linkage and forensic examination (handwriting/forensics) to tie exhibits to accused.
* Evidence – hearsay and unreliable testimony cannot replace direct proof of employment or culpability.
* Investigation – necessity of cautioned statements, forensic audit, witness statements and scene inquiries.
* Appeal – appellate review of trial evidence where conviction is unsafe due to evidential deficiencies.
|
10 November 2014 |
|
An operations manager’s unauthorized permission enabling private use of state broadcasting facilities constituted abuse of office and conspiracy.
* Anti‑corruption law – Abuse of office – unauthorized authorization of private use of state broadcasting facilities – requirement of tenancy/contract and managing‑director approval. * Evidence – admissibility and corroboration of co‑accused confession (charge and caution statement) in establishing conspiracy. * Criminal law – Conspiracy to defraud – acts and mutual understanding evidencing agreement. * Property offences – Fraudulent appropriation of electric power by using metered electricity without payment. * Proof of loss – necessity of quantifying financial prejudice when charging for causing financial loss.
|
3 November 2014 |
| August 2014 |
|
|
Whether solicitation and receipt under s.2(a) are distinct and whether the prosecution proved corruption beyond reasonable doubt.
* Anti‑Corruption Act s.2(a) – solicitation and acceptance/receiving are alternative, distinct acts. * Evidence – corroboration of trap operations and witness testimony can prove receipt. * Contradictions – minor inconsistencies and small exhibit errors not necessarily fatal. * Failure to call witness or tender fingerprint report not always fatal; prosecution’s discretion in adducing evidence. * Appellate re‑appreciation – duty to reassess credibility where necessary.
|
18 August 2014 |
|
Misjoinder of separate offences in one charge violated right to fair hearing; convictions quashed and retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – Joinder of accused and counts – Misjoinder where offences are separate in time, place and nature – s.87 Magistrates Courts Act.
* Constitutional law – Right to fair hearing – Defective charge sheet and misjoinder vitiating trial (Article 44(c)).
* Remedy – Convictions quashed and retrial ordered where trial defective for misjoinder.
* Appellate duty – First appellate court must re-hear and make its own decision on the evidence and law.
|
8 August 2014 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove illicit enrichment: past income omitted and valuation report lacked intelligible methodology, accused acquitted.
* Criminal law — Illicit enrichment — Proof requires precise financial profiling and valuation to show assets disproportionate to current and past known income (s.31). * Evidence — Expert valuation evidence must provide intelligible criteria and methodology, not bare ipse dixit. * Procedure — No‑case‑to‑answer proper where prosecution fails to prove essential ingredients; accused acquitted under s.73(1) Trial on Indictment Act.
|
8 August 2014 |
| July 2014 |
|
|
Senior procurement officers convicted for causing loss and neglect after flawed awarding and payment under a letter of credit.
Public procurement — evaluation and award — duty of due diligence; letters of credit — documentary discrepancies and bank queries; causing financial loss (s.20 ACA); abuse of office (s.11 ACA) vs administrative variations; neglect of duty (s.114 PCA); consultant v. public officer status; restitution and disqualification orders.
|
17 July 2014 |
| June 2014 |
|
|
The accused are entitled to full pre-trial disclosure; indictment must be amended for proper joinder.
Criminal procedure – Pre-trial disclosure – Right to adequate time and facilities for defence (Art 28(3)(c)) – No trial by ambush; Joinder of accused – Scope of S.24 Trial on Indictment Act – Misjoinder where offences occur on different days/locations; Particulars of indictment – Requirement under S.22; Disclosure before Deputy Registrar.
|
20 June 2014 |
| May 2014 |
|
|
Prosecution failed to prove abuse of office, embezzlement or false accounting; accused acquitted on all counts.
* Criminal law – Abuse of office – elements: employment in public body; arbitrary act; abuse of authority; prejudice to employer – failure to prove initiation, arbitrariness or prejudice. * Criminal law – Embezzlement – requirement of theft and stewardship/control of funds – absence of evidence of theft or control. * Criminal law – False/Fraudulent Accounting – officer charged with receipt/custody must be shown and a false return proved; misplacement of charge under wrong section and insufficiency of proof. * Procedure – searches by police must follow statutory (Police Act, Magistrates Courts Act) and constitutional safeguards.
|
20 May 2014 |
|
Appellant’s convictions for unlicensed deposit‑taking and embezzlement affirmed; compensation upheld and sentence reduced to three years.
* Financial Institutions Act – deposit‑taking – definition of "deposit" includes sums repayable with or without interest – licence required to transact deposit‑taking business.
* Penal Code – embezzlement – conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence where inculpatory facts exclude innocence.
* Burden of proof – prosecution bears burden beyond reasonable doubt; trial court’s critique of accused’s explanation does not necessarily shift burden.
* Compensation – section 270 Penal Code mandates compensation on conviction and allows apportionment of liability.
* Sentencing – remand credit and relative culpability between co‑accused inform appropriate reduction of custodial term.
|
14 May 2014 |
|
Court upheld convictions for unlicensed deposit-taking and embezzlement, affirmed compensation, disqualification, and a seven-year sentence.
* Financial Institutions Act s.4 – prohibition on transacting deposit-taking business without licence; operators and company officers liable. * Penal Code s.268 – embezzlement by company officer who accesses funds by virtue of office. * Proof – prosecution must prove elements beyond reasonable doubt; bank and witness evidence plus verification report may establish tracing and loss. * Compensation – court may order convicted persons to reimburse verified depositor losses. * Sentencing – remand credit, aggravating (large loss, repeat offending) and mitigating factors considered.
|
7 May 2014 |
| April 2014 |
|
|
Whether the appellant was validly charged and lawfully convicted for corrupt receipt of gratification.
* Criminal law – Corruptly receiving gratification – Particulars of charge – Requirement to disclose essential ingredients; * Public office – Definition of Chairperson L.C.V. as public officer under Constitution and Anti‑Corruption Act; * Evidence – Assessment of contradictions and discrepancies; minor inconsistencies not fatal; * Accomplice evidence – Competence and need for corroboration; corroborated accomplice testimony upheld; * Proof of receipt – Envelope exchange and matching note records as sufficient proof.
|
8 April 2014 |
| February 2014 |
|
|
Counsel for an employer who authored evidence against an accused creates a disqualifying conflict of interest.
* Conflict of interest – advocate acting for employer who authored evidence against accused – disqualification required; * Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2 – Reg 9 (advocate as witness) and Reg 10 (fiduciary duties) – applicability; * Partnership Act – firm-level liability and inability to evade disqualification; * Right to counsel of choice – not absolute where it causes professional misconduct or conflict.
|
13 February 2014 |
|
Senior public officers convicted for willfully approving a land licence without required Board and Solicitor General approvals.
Corruption — Abuse of office — elements: public officer; arbitrary act; abuse of authority; prejudice to employer; Board approval under National Forest Act required; Attorney General/Solicitor General legal advice under Article 119 mandatory for government-related contracts exceeding S.I.10/1999 exemption; failure to obtain approvals constitutes willful abuse of office; sentencing — custodial terms despite advanced age.
|
7 February 2014 |