State
Counsel Lamin Jarju of the Attorney General’s Chambers on 18 May 2017 urged the
High Court presided over by Justice Oleidi Uduma to dismiss the appeal filed by
Alhagie Kakay and Dodou Jabang.
The
appellants were convicted and sentenced to 10 years each by the Banjul
Magistrates’ Court, presided over by Abdoulie Fatty (Esq) on 4 January 2016
after they were found guilty on two counts of conspiracy to commit felony and
possession of prohibited drugs.
In
his submission, lawyer L. Jarju prayed the court to consider two issues for
determination and they are: whether the prosecution had proven its case against
the appellants and whether expunging the evidence of PW7 occasioned a
miscarriage of Justice.
On
issue one, State Counsel Lamin Jarju submitted that the prosecution witnesses
at the trial court strongly established that the appellants were in possession
of heroin substance.
He
argued that it was rebuttable presumptions of which the appellants had not
successfully rebutted based on their evidence, noting that the prosecution in
criminal proceedings was required to prove the case against an accused by
either direct or indirect evidence.
He
further argued that the burden of proof was placed on the prosecution and might
be discharged in the following ways: Confession, substantial evidence and
evidence of eyewitness (es).
Lamin
Jarju submitted that taking into account of the evidence of PW4 and PW5,
coupled with exhibit D, E and F, it was clear that a case was made out against
the appellants.
He
referred the court to some cases and pointed out that under cross-examination
of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence remained unchallenged and
uncontroverted.
He
argued that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 were among the arresting officers was
sufficient enough to secure conviction as they saw the appellants throwing the
substance out of the house.
He
urged the court to attach a probative value to the evidence of PW4 and PW5,
adding that the lower court had properly evaluated before convicting the
appellants on both counts.
State
Counsel Jarju submitted that the trial court was right when it concluded that
the prosecution had proven the element of the offence.
He
said it was trite that the duty of the Appellate Court was to ascertain whether
or not there was evidence upon which the trial court acted upon.
On
whether the expunging of the PW7 evidence occasioned a miscarriage of justice,
state Counsel L. Jarju submitted that the trial court was right when it granted
the application to expunge the evidence of PW7.
He
argued that the trial court acted rightly when it expunged the evidence of PW7,
adding that the expunging of PW7 evidence never occasioned a miscarriage of
justice.
Sate
Counsel Jarju urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction
and sentence of the lower court.
The
matter was adjourned until 5 June 2017, for the appellants to respond.
