By: Hafsatu Z Bangura
Justice Alhaji Momoh Jah Stevens has on the 14th June, 2022 sentenced Randa Skaikay to six years imprisonment after he found her guilty of stealing the Sum of $500,000 USD from her former boss, Alie Abess.
According to the state prosecutors JAK Sesay Esq and A Jalloh Esq, it was alleged that Randa Skaikay between 25th August to 27th August September 2018, at 30Bintumai Drive off Aberdeen Road in Freetown stole the sum of $500,000USD property of Alie Abess equivalent to 4.5 billion Leones.
Reading her judgment Justice Stevens thanked the prosecutors for prosecuting the matter and for their reasoned address and further thanked M.P Fofanah Esq representing the accused.
He said there is an established rule that in all criminal cases, it is the duty of the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused was also entitled to a discharge if no evidence was led against her according to the Criminal Procedure Act 1965.
He said the Prosecution presented six witnesses who testified and closed its case, while the convict was put on her selection, and that she replied on her written statement and told the court that she will call two witnesses.
Justice Stevens said section 13 (a) of the Larceny Act 1916 states “Every person who steals in any dwelling house any chattel, money or valuable shall be guilty of a felony and on conviction thereof liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years.
Justice Stevens furthermore stated that in his legal opinion in relation to section 17(1) (a) of the Larceny Act 1916, the act is simple, straightforward, unambiguous and unequivocal, in that if an employer, whether in his employment or not, for as long as the subject matter in issue so stolen belongs to his or her master, a charge in larceny by servant can be applied.
He added that the offence was not limited to the occasion wherein an accused can mainly steal things or monies meant for the running if the establishment, where he or she is employed but also extends to theft committed from chattels, goods or monies owned personally and possessed by the said employer, whether at home, in in the office or elsewhere.
The question I wish to raise is this why the accused had to go to her sleeping room to take pictures of the said money and post same thereafter to PW1. For me, the judge said I submit that it was wrong for the accused to have move from the room of PW1 to her bed room to take pictures of the money she said was $140,000. She was directed to take it as requested by PW1.
He added that the Prosecution has established and the case that the accused was solely placed in charge of the house of her employer, and that no one had access to the house whilst the convict was in charge without her permission.
He furthermore went in that the defense also ought to have realized that it was so soon after several number of years the convict had been working for the OW1 and that just a refusal to give her keys to open the shop of PW1 at Sir Samuel Lewis Road, will prompt her hastily quitting her employment unceremoniously.
“In fact, in my humble opinion the convict abandoned her job in the face of the allegation to which I submit was a monumental mistake that will certainly haunt her for a very long time if not for ever and that such abandonment of her job had inextricably impute criminal intent and action that the money in issue was not stolen by anyone but by herself with the sole intention to permanently deprive PW1 and his family, he said.
He also said the accused ought to have realized that it was also debilitating I claim in her defense that she was initially accused by PW1 of taking his one million united States Dollars, thus noting that none of the defense witnesses supported that assertion made by the accused.
He said the claim by the accused now convict was misleading, unfounded and untrue.
” I will hold that the Prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt in both counts one, two and I hold that the accused is guilty on count one and count two the accused is therefore convicted, Justice Momoh Jah Stevens ruled.
The judge further ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently and further mentioned consequential orders that PW1 shall bring an action in civil for the recovery of his $500,000USD immediately after the convict would have served her jail term.
