By: Audrey Raymonda John
Twenty-six-year-old Alusine Kamara, a Mastic designer, and Musa Turay, a mason, made another appearance before Magistrate Santigie Bangura of Pademba Road Court No.2 in Freetown on two-count charges, namely Conspiracy to commit a crime contrary to law and Larceny contrary to section 2 of the Larceny Act of 1916.
According to the particulars of the offense on Friday, 7th June 2024, Villa 15, Hill Station, the mountain rural district of the western area of Freetown, conspired with other persons unknown to commit a crime.
Count two further stated that on the same date and place, the accused persons stole twenty-two cartons of floor tiles and other assorted items equivalent to the total value of sixteen thousand five hundred Leones(16,500) property of Ashimiru Lahai.
When the charges were read and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty.
The prosecutor, Deputy Superintendent of police Sorie Conteh, led three witnesses.
Magistrate Bangura delivered his judgment, saying the accused persons stand charged with two counts of Conspiracy Contrary to Law and Larceny contrary to section 2 of the Larceny Act of 1916.
It is alleged that on Friday, June 15, 2024, at Villa 15, Hill Station, Freetown, in the Freetown Judicial District, the accused persons conspired with unknown people and stole several properties, all to a total value of Le 16,500/00 (Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Leones), property of the complainant herein.
The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and assigned the onus of proving them to the prosecution. The prosecution must prove both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
He said the prosecution went about proving its case with three witnesses, including the formal witness, who testified and was duly cross-examined.
The accused, on the other hand, chose to rely on their statements to the police as evidence when the options to defend were explained to them.
In count one, the accused persons are charged with conspiracy. The evidence must prove that the accused persons agreed with other people to commit the offense charged in count two to prove the offense of conspiracy. Agreement, therefore, is an essential ingredient of this offence. For that, I refer to the case of Mulcahy v. R (1868) SR FL 306 and Rv. Walker 1962 Crim. L. R. 458.
I consider the evidence of PWI whose properties were stolen that accused persons were brought to them with their cartoons of tiles which they said they found with them. I had seen D W2 confirming this piece of evidence to a huge extent when he said he saw ” accused carrying the tiles in question, which they confiscated from him.
He said he sent for the accused, who came and confirmed that he sent the accused with the said tiles.
The accused persons also confirmed this piece of evidence of the prosecution and their allegations when they admitted them in their respective statements made to the police. He said in his statement marked as Exhibit B1-11 that it was an accused who asked him to join him and others to carry for him the cartoons in question. He said he went with him to Villa 15 and carried cartoons of the said tiles.
This piece of evidence has proved the elements of the offenses charged. It is clear that the accused persons had an agreement with the other people to commit the offense in count two, and said agreement they pursued. There is an agreement, and a course of conduct has been pursued, which has led to the execution of the said agreement.
In the circumstance, he now finds both accused persons guilty on count one.
In count two, the accused persons are charged with Larceny, contrary to section 2 of the Larceny Act 1916. The offense of larceny is committed when a person who, without consent of the possessor or owner of the property, fraudulently or dishonesty, and without claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intention at the time of the taking to permanently deprive the possessor or owner of the property. To convict the accused, the prosecution must prove two elements: the actual taking of the property, even if (actus reus).
And the guilty intent to permanently deprive the complainant of the said property (mens rea).
From the piece of evidence herein, this offense has been largely proven because there is proof that both accused persons took and carried away the building materials in question. It is clear that when they were carrying these building materials, they did not have the consent of their owner, the complainant.
In light of this argument, as stated above, evidence, and the law, he holds that the prosecution has proven this count against both accused beyond reasonable doubt.
They were both found guilty as charged. Therefore, he sentenced both accused persons to one-year imprisonment in the male correctional facility in Freetown.
