proof of receiving of stolen property

Where a person is being charged for receiving stolen property, the guilt of such person may be proved, aside of the normal way of proving some specific relevant ingredients of the offence, by establishing the following:

That other stolen property within 12 months from the date he was charged was found in his possession.

That within 5 years from the date he was charged, he had already been convicted for an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.

To establish point (b) above, that is, that the accused person has been within the period 5 years preceding the charge of receiving stolen property convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty, the following two additional steps must have been taken, that is:

7 days-notice in writing have been served on the accused person that the proof of such conviction is intended to be given against him, and that

Evidence has been given that the property in respect of which he, the accused person is being tried was found on him or had been in his possession

See Section 36(1)(a)(b) Evidence Act, 2011; Bogobiri V The State (2017) HELAR ratio 1

Yes, where a prosecutor intends to call evidence to establish that a person accused of knowingly receiving stolen property has already been convicted for fraud or dishonestly, the prosecution is expected to give seven (7) days notice in writing to the accused person that proof of his previous conviction is intended to be given in evidence.

Secondly, the prosecution must show evidence that the stolen property was found in possession of the offender.

See Section 36(2) Evidence Act, 2011; Bogobiri V The State (2017) HELAR ratio 1 and 4

Satisfying the above stated conditions is not an option and it cannot be waived. The conditions above are very important in establishing the guilt of the person charged for knowingly receiving stolen property.

SeeOkoroji V. State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 77) 871 CA; Bogobiri V The State (2017) HELAR ratio 1 and 4

In estimating the weight to be attached to a statement admitted as evidence, the court usually looks at all the circumstance from which it can draw reasonable inference as to whether or not a statement is accurate. Where there is question as to the accuracy of a statement, the court would look at whether or not the statement was made contemporaneously with the fact stated, and whether or not the maker of the statement had any reason to hide the truth. See Section 34 Evidence Act, 2011.