REX V. PALMER IYAKWE

 President :- In this case the Appellant was charged with two other men with burglary and stealing. He was convicted of the offences as charged and sentenced to five years I.H.L., and three years Police supervision. The other two accused were convicted of “receiving” and sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment.

The only evidence to connect the Appellant with the burglary and stealing was that 5 months after it he was in possession of the shoes and passed them to one of the other accused to sell for him, and-though this was believed by the trial Judge the Appellant denied it.

We are of opinion that, in these circumstances, the doctrine of “recent possession” cannot operate in such a way as to make it proper for the Appellant to be convicted of the burglary and stealing, but we are satisfied that the Judge must have been satisfied of facts which prove the Appellant guilty of receiving the shoes knowing them to have been stolen, and that on the charge he could and should have found the Appellant guilty of that offence.

We accordingly substitute for the verdict found by the Judge a verdict of guilty of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen contra sec. 427 of the Criminal Code and in substitution for the sentence passed at the trial sentence the Appellant to two years I.H.L to be followed by three years Police supervision.