Judgement

 

1 On file is a fifteen (15) Counts indictment dated 20th day of  May  2019  against  the Accused on allegations of misappropriation of publ ic funds and conspiracy contrary to Sections 36(1) and 128 (1) respectively of the Anti-Corr up tion Act No. 12  of  2008 to  wit·

 

Count 1

Statement of Offence

M1sappropr,at1un of Public Funds contrary to Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12

of2008

 

Particulars of O ffe nce

Alie Badarn M,rnsartiy of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sterro Leone being former Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Tur ay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western /\rea of the Republic of Sierra Leone being fo rmer Finance

 

"

Director of NaCSA on or about the 241
 

June 2016 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra

 

Leone, misappropriated the sum of US$ 6,063.64 (Six Thousand and Sixty Three United States Dollars, Sixty rour Cents) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Count 2

St at ement of Offence

Misappropriation of Public Funds contrary to Section 36(1) of the Anti Corruption Act No 12 of20U8

 

Particulars of Offence

Alie Badara Mansaray of 7 K Lumley Road in Freeto wn in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sie rr a Leone being form er Finance Director ot NaCSA on or about the 24th June 2016 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, mis;:ipproprinted the surn of US$ 12,283.00 (Twelve Thousand Tow Hundred and Eighty

 

Three Un,tcd States  Dollars)  being  Provident  Fund  deductions  of  salari es  of  the  National Cu m n n:.:,10 11 ior ':iocial Ac:.t1on (NaCSA).

 

Count 3

Statement of Offence

M1sappropnatior of Public Funds contrary to Section 36(1) of lhe Anti-Corruption Act, No 12

of 2008

 

Particulars of Offence

/\lie Badara Mdnsa, ay of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of

)11.!rra Leone being former Comm1ss1oner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Arca of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on or about the 22nd August 2016 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, m, c1ppropriatcd the sum of US$ 5, 887.55 (Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven United States Dollars and Fifty Five Cents) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the Nattonal Commission for Social Action {NaCSA).

 

Count4

Statement of Offence

Misappropriation of Public Funds contrary lo Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption /\ct, No 12

of2008

 

Particulars of Offence

Alie Badara M ansaray of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Com m issioner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on or about the 21st October 2016 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, misappropriated the sum of US$11,753.00 (Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifly rhree United States Dollars) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the N;it1onal Comm1ss1on for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Counts

Sta t em ent of Offence

M1:;appropmilion of Public Fune.ls contrary to Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12

ol 2008

 

Particulars of Offence

Alie Badara Mansc1ray of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Arca of the Republic of Sierra Leone being farmer Commissioner of NaCSA and Rich ard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on or about the 21st October 2016 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, misappropriated the sum of US$ 8,060.90 (Eight Thousand and Sixty United Stutes Dollars and Ninety Cents) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Count 6

Statement of Offence

 

Misappropriation ol Public I unds contrary lo Seclion 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12 or2008

 

Part icular s of Offence

/\lie BadarJ Monsaray of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of

Sierra Leone being ro,mer Comrn1ssioncr of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freelown in  the Western  Area of  the  Republic of  Sierra  Leone being former Finance

Director of NaCSA on  or  about the 23rd November 2016 in  Freetown in the Western Area of

Sierru Leone, misappropriated Lhe sum of US$ 11,053.00 (Eleven Thousand and Fifty Three United Slates Dollars) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the National Commission fo, Social Action (NaCS/\}.

 

Count 7

Statement of Offence

Misappropriation of Public Funds contrary to Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12

of2008

 

Particulars of Offence

Alie Badara Mansuray of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown 1n the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director or NaCSA on or about the 23rd November 2016 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, misapproprialcd the sum of US$ 10,236.90 (Ten Thousand Two Hundred and  l h1rty United States Dollars, NineLy Cents) being Provident rund deductions of salaries ol the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Counts

Statement of Offence

Misappropriation of Public Funds cont rary to Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12

of2008

 

Particulars of Offence

Alie Badara Ma11suray of 7 K Lu,nley Road in Freetown ,n the Western Area of the Republic. of Si1.:rrd Leone bC'ing former Comm1s.s1oner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western /\rea of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on or about the 16th December 2016 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, misappropriated the sum of US$ 11,053.00 (Eleven Thousand and Fifty Three United States Dollars) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Count 9

Statement of Offence

Misappropriulion of Public Funds cont r ary to Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No 12 of2008

 

Particulars of Offence

 

/\lie Badara Mansaray of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leon being former Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on or about the 16th December 2016 in Free town in the Western Area of

.)lerra Leone, rn15uppropriuled the sum of US$ 12,445.90 (Twelve Thousand and Four Hundred and Forty Five United States Dollars and Ninety Cents) being Provident Fund deductions of salari es of the Nutional Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Count 10

Statement of Offence

Misappropriation of Public Funds contrary to Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12

of2008

 

Particulars of Offence

Alie Badara Man aray of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Financ e

Director of  NaCSA on   or   about  the 16th    December 2016 in Freetown in  the  Western Area of

Sierra Leone, misappropriated the sum of Le. 7,958,750.00 (Seven Million Nine Hundred and Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Leones) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of Lhe National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA}.

 

Count 11

Statement of Offence

Misappropriation of Public Funds contrary to Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12 of2008

 

Particulars of Offence

/\lie Badara Mansaray of 7 K Lurnley Road in Freetown in the Western Arca or the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Tur ay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on or about the 16th December 2016 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, misappropriated the sum of le. 5,228,997.22 (Five Million Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Tliousund Nine I lundrcd and Ninoty-Seven Leones Twenty-Two Cents) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Count 12

Statement of Offence

Misappropriation of Public Funds contrary to Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12 of2008

 

Part iculars of Offence

Alie Badara Mansaray of 7 K Lumley Hoad in Freetown in the Western Area of th e Republic of Sicrrn Leone being former Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Arca of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on or about the 2ir,January 2017 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, misappropriated the sum of Le. 24,704,958.234 (Twenty-Four Million Seven Hundred

 

nnd Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-l:1ght Leones Two Hundred and Thirty-Four Cents) being Providenl Fund deductions of salaries of the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Count 13

Statement of Offence

Misc1pprop11ation of  Public Funds contrary to  Section 36(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No_ 12 of :rnos

 

Particulars of Offence

Alie Badara Mansaray of 7 K Lumley Road tn Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being farmer Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right

Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCS/\ on or aboul the 2i I1January 2017 in Freetown in the Western Area of Sie rra

Leone, m1sappropnated lhe sum of Le. 46,882,425.75 (Fort y-Six Million Eight Hundred and Eighty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-Five Leones Seventy-Five Cents) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA).

 

Count14

Statement of Offence

Conspiracy to commit a corruption offence contrary to Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 12 of 2008

 

Particulars of Offence

Alic Badara Mansaray or 7 K Lllmley Road in Freetown in lhe Western Area of the Republic of

,erra Leone being former Commissioner of NaCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on diverse dates between the months of June 2016 and December 2016, in Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone conspired together and with other persons unknown to misappropriate the sum of $88,836.81 (Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Six United Slates Dollars and Thirty One Cents) being Provident Fund deductions of salaries of the National Commission for Social Action (NaCS/\).

 

Count 15

Stat ement of Offence

Conspiracy to commit a corruption offence contrary to Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Acl, No.12 of 2008

 

Particulars of Offence

Alie Badara Mansaray of 7 K Lumley Road in Freetown in the Western Arca of the Republic of Sierni Leone being former Commissioner of N;:iCSA and Richard Turay of 20C Fifth Road, Right Juba Hill, rreetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone being former Finance Director of NaCSA on diverse dates between the months of June 2016 and December 2016, in Freetown in the Western A,ea of the Republic of Sierra Leone conspir ed together and with other persons unknown to misappropriate the sum of Le. 84,775,131.21 (Eighty-Four Million Seven Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand One Hundred and Thirty-One Leones and Twenty-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

One Cents} being Provident Fund deduction:, of salaries of the National Commission for Social

/\cl1on (NaCS/\).

 

1. The allegation

It is the Prosecution's case that the Accused being lhc Commissioner of the NaCS/\ during the period  covered  by  the  indictment,  a   semi-autonom ous   government   agency,   dgreed   with other staff rnemlwrs Lo operate a scheme by which doduction w!?re made from staff salaries held in the NaCSA public funds account at the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank (SLCB) with the

understanding that the said deductions will be transferred into a United States Dollars dl.t.Ount ,md u Sicrru Leone, Leones Providcrnt l=und ;;iccount held at the said SLCB; that moneys deducted from staff salaries for the months of June 2016, August 2016, November 2016, December 2016 and January 2017 from staff salaries from the NaCSA account with the

.iµproval of the Accu ed in hi capac1ly as Commissioner of NaCS/\ and the Finance Director w 1e neve1 transferred into the said Provident Fund account. According lo the Prosecutors, moneys deducted from stall salaries, were on the instructions of the Accused paid to the Accused and h,s Deputy as allowances while some of the said deducted moneys were also, on the instructions of the Accused used to pay staff salaries of project funded stafl members. 1hc deducted moneys, Jccording to the Prosecutor were never paid into lhe Provident Fund Jcwunt. Ihe St,lle now alleer that the Accused conspired wi th one Ri chard Turay together with  other  persons   unknown   to   misappropriate  $88,836.81  and  Le.  84,775,131.21 r e peclively and that the accused did misappropriate these funds which il is the Prosecutor's case, are public funds in the ,nanner indicated in the indictment hereinbefore referred lo.

 

1. Burden of Proof

1hrs Court sits both as a tribunal of lact and as a tribunal of law. I must Lherefore keep in my mind and 1n rny view al all times, that in all criminal cases it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offence with which the Jccused person is charged.

 

If there 1s any doubt on my mind, as to the guilt or otherwise of the Accused per son, in respect of rhe charge on the lnd1cl rn en t, I have a duty to acquit and discharge the Accused per son of that charge. I must be satisfied 1n my mind so that I am sure that the Accused person has not only commitlec1 the unlawful act charged on the Indictment, but that he did so with the requ1s1te mens rea that is that lhe act was done wilfully.

 

I amalso mindful of the principle that even if I do not believe the version of events put forward by the Defence, I must give at the benefit of lhe doubt if the Prosecut ion has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. No particular form of words is 'sacrosanct or absolutely necessary' as was pointed out by Sir Samuel Bankole Jones, P, in the Court of Appeal in Koroma V R (1964-66) ALR SL 542 at 5 48 LL4-5. What is of importance is that the Prosecution establishes the guilt of the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

The Court refers to the case of Sohr Mbambay V The State App. 31/74 CA (unrcported)-the cyclostylcd Judgment of Livesey Luke, JSC at pages 11-13. At Page 12, where Luke JSC referring to Woolrwngton V R said, th.:it 'if at the end of the whole case, there 1s a reasonable doubt created hy the evidence given either by the Prosecution or the pnsoner .. the Prosecution  ha!. not made out thl:' cose and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal'

 

of deductions from slaff salaries for each of the months referred to in Co unt s 1-13 and how such deductions were made.

 

I said 1n my ruling on the no case submis sion that i t is clear that deducti ons were made from salaries of NaCSA staff but how these de du ctions were made as I said, were no t pr oven to t he Court. It 1s alleged that deducllons made from the Staff Salaries Accounts not transferred into the staff Provident Fund Accounts. Exhibit Ml-7 says nothing about how these deductions were made. There is nothing before the Cour t to show how:

1. Payment of staff salaries from the Consolidated revenue in to the staff salary account(s) for lhe period under review by proo f as in th e said Pu bl ic Funds Accounts hereinbef ore referred to;
2. How payments of these staff salari es were made to indi vidual staff accoun ts after

deductions for contributions into the Provident Fund account;

1. How monthly deductions by the Commissio n we re m ade from the cont ribu tors' salaries and transferred into theprovident fun d account at the SLCB.
2. No Bank Statement of the NaCSA salaries account was pr esent ed to the Court which could h<lvc advised the Cou r t on move ments of m o ney s; on whose authori zatio n; payees/recipients of such moneys.

 

The Court notes from the testimon ies of Prosecuti on Witn esses, especially, PW2, PW 3, PW4 and PWS that deductions were made from slaff salaries for the m ont hs of June to December 2016 and JanuJry 2017. According to PWS, the GPC project staff salari es for June through December 2016 and January 2017 were delayed.

 

I here 1s no proof that salaries were in fact paid into the salaries poo ls account at the SLCB and there 1s no proof that deductions were made from salaries of Provident Fund mem b ers. One of the elements which needs proof to succeed on a Section 36(1) charge is pr oof of unlaw ful appropriation. I have said that there must be an appr o pr iat ion fo r the re to  be mi sappropriatio n. The Pro secution has not shown any appropriat ion from the Staff Salaries Accounts. There is, simp ly put, nobank st atement of such accounts, apart from words spoken. This being a Court of law and fact I make bold to say that the investigation is incomplete. If I accept, in the absence of proof of how the alleged deductions r eferenced in Exhibi t s Nl -13 were made, then I am bound to believe they were so made by th e Finan ce Depart ment which was respon sible for the management of the Com missi on ' s finan ce. The que st ion th ere for e will remain, 'what happened to the moneys deducted?'.

 

I again refer to the testimonies of t he Pro secution Witnesses, part icularly, PWS. PWS told the Court that it was the instructions of the 1st Accused that moneys de du ct ed from staff salaries and meant for transfer into the Provident Funds account be rat her used for allowances tor himself and his then deputy and for payment of salaries for staff of the GPC SL proiect. I have

asked myself the questi on, 'how then were the paym ent s of allow ances for the period June to December  2016 and  January 2017 to the 1st Accused and  his deput y and staff salaries of

ot her staff members made? Were these payments m ade by cheque? If so, could waste cheques have been tendered to th e Cour t? Were they made by bank tr ansfers? If so, could bank statements of at least the Accused and/ or his dep uty h ave been tender ed to sho w proof tha t even thoueh their allow,rnces from donors were delayed for the month s specified, they still received payments of those allowances from the Staff Salari es Accounts?' The 1st Accused

 

has denied the allegation that he gave such in struct ions to PWS. It  is clear to  the Court  that by Exhibit 01 date d 18 th December 2014,  titled 'Commissioner'  s Responsibility All ow ance' , the 1 1  Accused  was entitled  to a monthly allowanc  e of $3,505 and his deputy was en titled   to a monthly allowa nce of $2,633.

 

I note the Com m ission er' s powers under Section 57(2) of the Anti-Commission Act, 2008 where the Commissioner could require any financial institution or officer of a financial institution    to  produce copies of  any bank  account  etc. One would have expected that the

Prosecutor could have produced and tendered the bank statement of the 1st Accused which no doubt the Co mmission   could have requested of the 1st Accused' Bankers. Such Bank

St atem ent would have shown that allowances for the months under consider at i on, which according to th e Prosecution' s case were deducted from st aff salaries, were in fact paid into the Accused per son ' s account instead  of  it  being paid into  the Provident  Fund Accounts

provid ed also th at  the Pro secutor would have exhibited the Bank Statement for the  public

funds account and shown the Court that payments of the 1st Accused' and his deputy' s allowances and other staff salaries by the GPC was in fact never made into the said Staff Salaries Account.

 

The first par agra ph of Exhi bit 0 1 reads: " The res ponsibilit y allowance for the Com mis sione rs is an allowance paid month l y in addition to theirremuneration received from Government for the fiduciary role s played in the administration of donor funds. The cost is charged to all donors pro rota". The Prosecution ought to have first  proven that  in fact, the  allowances  for the  period under  review  to  which  the  151   Accused  was entitled under Exhibi t  01   were never

paid by donors. Then the question the investigator ought to have asked himself , upon receipt

of the Accused bank statement would have been "How then was the Accused paid? From which funds was he paid?" There is nothing to show that moneys which ought not to have been paid were paid to the 1st Accused. The Prosecutor also never asked the 1st Accused when he came to his defence wheth er or not he in fact received his all owances for the period June to December 2016 and for January 2017.

 

I had reminded mysel f that If there is any doubt on my mind, as to the guilt or otherwise of

the 1t5    Accused in  respect  of  the  charge on  the  Indict ment,  I have a duty  to acquit  and

discharge th e 1' 1 /\ccused o f that charge. I must be satisfied in my mind so that I am sure that the 1" Accused per::.on h as not only committed the unlawful act charged on the Indictm ent, but that he did so with the requisit e mens rea, that is thot  the act was done  wil fully. I huve not seen the act of dishonesty or wilful act done by the 1st Accused. I had also said that even if I do not believe the version of events put forward by the 1st Accused, I must give it the benefit of the doubt if the Prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

In the absence of  proof that moneys deducted from staff salaries were paid as allo wancesto

the 1st Accused, his deputy and some staff members upon the instructions of the 1st Accused,

I am by law lef t with no option but to give the 1st Accused the benefit of the doubt and to acquit and dischar ge the 1st Accused.

I cannot wrap up on the proceedings in respect of the Section 36(1) charge without commenting on the Indictment as it relates to Counts 1-13. I have stated the elements to be proven for a successful prosecution of Section 36(1), one of which is that the moneys

 

misappropriated must be public funds. I had stated in the no case submission in respect of this matter that what I considered in writing that ruling and indeed what I  considered  in writing this judgment is the moneys in the NaCSA Staff Salaries Accounts at the SLCB. I have above stated my reasons why those said moneys are public funds as defined by the Interpretation section of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2008. Suffice it to say that the drafters reference in Counts 1-13 of the Indictment to 'provident funds' as moneys misappropriated cannot be correct. If the moneys removed from the NaCSA Salaries Accounts are paid into the Provident Fund Accounts, which is like any other personal/private account, it ceases to be public funds simply because by its unlawful appropriation, one will not be depriving a public body of such funds; iJ body of private persons of the scheme will be said to be deprived not a public body.

 

Counts 14 & 15

Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008 provides that·

 

Any .. conspiracy to commit a corruption offence .... shall be punishable as if the offence had been completed and any rules of evidence which apply with respect to the proof of any such offence shall apply in like manner to the proof of conspiracy to commit such offence.

 

The required ingredients for primo focie proof of the offence of conspiracy are:

 

1. an agreement between two or more persons
2. to commit a corruption offence.

 

I must note that the corruption offence referred to under Lhe said Section is as referred to in Counts 1-13 of the indictment hereinbefore referred to. I shall now deal with Counts 14 and 15 as relate to the charge of conspiracy contrary to Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2008.

 

Counsel for the 1 ' Accused states that the Prosecution did not adduce any evidence of an agreement of minds to do an unlawful act by an unlawful means nor did the Prosecution adduce any evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that the 1st Accused connived with anyone  to carry out any unlawful conduct.

 

I draw Coumel'!:. attention to the wording of the particulars of offence in Counts 14 and 15 to wit: Alie Badara Mansaray ... and Richard Turay ... conspired together with other persons unknown to misappropriate the sum of $88,836.81; Alie Badara Mansaray ... and Richard Turay ... conspired together with other persons unknown to misappropriate the sum of Le. 84, 775, 131.31.

 

An agreement to commit a crime docs constitute the crime. The agreement is the essence of conspir acy. See Blackstone's Crim inal Practice, 2012 Edn, page 94 para. AS.37. When two or more persons c1gree ro carry their criminal scheme into eff ect, the very plot is the criminal act itself. See Mu/c/10hy Vs. R (1868) L.R 3 H.L 306 at 317.

 

It is however important to note that with the offence of conspiracy, the agreement may be proved in the usual way or by proving circumstances from which the jury may presume it. See

 

RVs Parsons (1763) 1 W.BI. 392; RVs Murphy (1837) 8 C. & P. 297. Proof of the existence of a conspiracy is generally a ' matte r of infere nce, deduce d fr om certain criminal act s of the parties accused, done in purr.,uance of an apparent criminal pur pose in common between them. See RVs. Bnsoc (1803) 4  East 164  at  171, cited with approval in  Mulcahy  Vs. R (1868) L K 3 H.L 306 at 317 as referr ed in Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 2011 Ldn. Page 2876 para. 33-14 under the rubric "Proving the agreement".

 

The 1st Accused denied that he conspired with anyone to commit the offences alleged in Counts 1-13 of the Indictment. There is nothing before the Court to show that moneys to which lhc· 1 'Ac.cu!>t>d and hi!> deputy were entitled to as per Exhibit 01 and salaries of staff members under the GPR proJcct were not paid by the GPR; there is nothing in writing to prove that the l ' t Accused instructed PWS to pay deducted salaries to him and his deputy as allowances and to some staff members as salaries. I have held that the Pro secution has failed to prove that moneys deducted on the authorisations as in Exhibit N1-5 were paid to the 1st Accused, his deputy or as salary to any staff member. I have found no evidence by which I can infer that the Accused conspired with any other person to m isappropri ate public funds as referred to in Counts 1-13 of the Indictment.

 

In light of the above I return the following verdict:

 

 

Count 1

Count 2

Count 3

Count 4

Count 8

Count 10

Count 11

Count 12

Count 13

Count 14

Count 15

 

Not Guil t y Not Guilty Not Guilty Not Guilty Not Guilty Not Guilty Not Guilty Not Guilty Not Guilty Not Guilty

Not Guilty         ........... L             ..................

Hon. Jst. M