CORAM
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
THE QUEEN
APPELLANTS
ALEXANDER A. OHAKA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAW OF EVIDENCE-BURDEN OF PROOF—APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The accused/appellant was found guilty of possession poisonous drugs with an intent to use for an illegal purpose and without the required licence as provided for under the Phramacy Act. He challenged the verdict that the onus of proof lay with the prosecution to prove that he possessed them for an illegal purpose.
HELD
The appeal is dismissed
ISSUES
Not Available
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL CASE
‘It was therefore right to call on the appellant for his defence, and the onus was on him to prove that he had the poisonous drugs found in his possession without any intent that they should be for an illegal purpose. He could have discharged that onus on a balance of probabilities by showing that more probably than not he had those drugs without any such intent.’ Per BAIRAMIAN F.J
CASES CITED
1. R. v. Oliver, (1944) K.B. 68.
2. R. v. Kakelo, 27 Cox, 454
3. R. v. Ezeocha, 12 W.A.C.A. 56
4. R. v. Carr-Briant, (1943) K.B. 607
5. R. v. Podola, (1959) 3 All E.R., 418.
6. R. v. Opia, W.A. C. A 114
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Criminal Procedure Act
2. The Evidence Act
3. The Pharmacy Act