Facts
The High Court convicted the appellant of murder on the basis of his retracted confession. Before convicting the court warned itself of the danger of basing the conviction on an uncorroborated retracted confession. On appeal the appellant argued that the trial court's conviction should be faulted because the learned Trial Judge did not give reasons why he relied on the uncorroborated confession.
Held:
(i) Generally it is dangerous to act upon a repudiated or retracted confession unless it is corroborated in material particulars or unless the court, after full consideration of the circumstances, is satisfied that the confession must but be true.
(ii) Once the trial court warns itself of the danger of basing a conviction on uncorroborated retracted confession and having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is satisfied that the confession is true, it may convict on such evidence without any further ado.
(iii) It is not a requirement of the law that reasons have to be given for the trial court's finding that there is no danger in accepting a retracted confession.
(iv) The learned Trial Judge found no danger in founding a conviction on the confessional statement because he was satisfied that the confession was true.
Case Infomation
Appeal dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment