GUEST ARTICLE: Identity Of Criminals Crucial – Court
By Dickson Jere
A lady was attacked by criminals in the dark. One grabbed her from behind while another confronted her from the front. She could not see the attackers properly because of darkness. They then stole her handbag, cash and cellphone. They used violence and force to rob her and threatened her when she tried to resist the attack..
Few minutes later after the attack, a man was arrested in connection with the attack. Later, another one was also arrested. The two were then jointly charged with aggravated robbery.
They appeared in High Court for trial.
After witnesses testified, including the victim, who confirmed that she could not see the attackers properly as it was in the dark, but that the bag that was later recovered was hers.
The Judge had to decide whether the two could be put on defence given the evidence adduced in Court by the prosecution. The Judge noted that the offence of aggravated robbery was committed but the question that remained unanswered is who did it.
“The evidence of identification is completely absent,” the Judge noted, after evaluating the evidence presented in Court.
“The identity of an accused person is a key ingredient to any offence – whether proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. It is an ingredient that has to be proved with sufficient evidence before an accused person can be found with case to answer,” the Judge said.
Given the lack of identification of the accused persons, the Court found that it was not safe to convict the two and therefore set them free.
“In view of the foregoing, I find that the prosecution have failed to surmount this crucial element of the offence. I find that there is no case to answer in relation to both accused persons,” the Judge ruled.
Case citation – Chiseba and Another v The People- HL/39/2024.
Lecture Notes;
1. In criminal law, it is important to directly link the accused person to the offence. Usually, the police will conduct an identification parade so that the victim to pin point the attackers and also give background on how they were identified given the attackers did it in the dark. Absence of that link, the accused gets freedom. Or the evidence should link the accused by showing that they were found with the stolen items.