CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UNSWORTH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – DEMANDING WITH INTENTION TO STEAL-FALSE PRETENSES- CORRUPTION UNDER SECTION 116(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant obtained money from the complainant under the pretense that the inspector of police requested for it in order not to prosecute him for an offense he knew he did not commit. He was convicted under section 406, 116 and 419 of the criminal code.
HELD
The court held that the appellant was wrongly convicted under sections 406 and 116 of the criminal code because the complainant knew there was no offence for which he could be charged and therefore, there was no possibility of interfering with the administration of justice.
ISSUES
Whether the appellant’s conviction under sections 406, 116 and 419 of the criminal code was justified by the evidence before the trial court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE OFFENCE OF DEMANDING PROPERTY WITH MENACES WITH INTENT TO STEAL.
‘section 406 covers demands made by the offender for himself or for others with a view to steal so long as such demands are accompanied by threats of any injury or detriment of any kind if the demands are not complied with.’ Per Ademola C.J.F
FALSE PRETENSE
‘It is immaterial in a charge for attempting to obtain by false pretence that the complainant could not have been deceived by the pretences made or that the false pretences could not have operated on his mind to give the money’. Per Ademola C.J.F
CASES CITED
R. v. Romanus Ezejiogu, 10. W.A.C. A. 230, and Inspector-Gen-eral of Police v. Clement Alashi, 4 F.S.C. 216
R. v. Light, 11 C.A.R. 111.
R. v. Hens-ler, 11Cox 570
R. v. Ady, 7 C. and P. 140
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Criminal Code