Read the full judgment text of CACC 000475/1980 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 June 1980 before Roberts, C.J..
Criminal law – forfeiture – property used in commission of an offence – section 102 Criminal Procedure Code – appeal – robbery – burglary – ownership – oxyacetylene burners – pressure gauges – handcuffs – walkie-talkie – magistrate's jurisdiction – requirement of conviction – section 102(1)(c) – section 102(1)(a) – remittal for further evidence – The appellant was convicted of robbery and police seized five items from him. The magistrate ordered forfeiture under section 102(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires property to have been used in the commission of an offence. The appellant appealed, claiming ownership of three items (oxyacetylene burners, hoses, pressure gauges) used for work and recreation, and disclaiming ownership of handcuffs and walkie-talkie. The Supreme Court held that the magistrate erred in using section 102(1)(c) because no person had been convicted of the burglary offence referred to, though the property was connected to the robbery of which the appellant was convicted, making section 102(1)(a) applicable. The court declined to reverse the magistrate's findings without further inquiry into credibility. The matter was remitted to the magistrate to re-open proceedings and take evidence on ownership of the three disputed items. The forfeiture order for the handcuffs and walkie-talkie was upheld as the appellant did not pursue that part of the appeal.
Legal issues: Forfeiture order under section 102(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome: Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to magistrate for further inquiry regarding three disputed items; forfeiture order upheld for handcuffs and walkie-talkie.