R. v. Bakema, (1980) 3 Man.R.(2d) 395 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: May 02, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 395 (CoCt)

R. v. Bakema (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 395 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Bakema

Indexed As: R. v. Bakema

Manitoba County Court

Judges' Criminal Court

Eastern Judicial District

Jewers, C.C.J.

May 2, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of stealing money in excess of $200 from his employer, the City of Winnipeg. The accused worked in the coin room of the City, counting, sorting and packaging coins and other money received from parking meters, etc.

The Manitoba County Court convicted the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 1841

Offences against the property - Possession of stolen goods - Essential elements - Possession or control - The Manitoba County Court stated that for a person to be guilty of possession of stolen property he must have exercised or asserted the right to exercise some measure of control over the property - See paragraph 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 5510

Evidence - Testimony of accomplices - Warning of danger of reliance on testimony of accomplice - The accused, who worked in the coin room of a city, was accused of stealing large amounts of coins - One of the witnesses against him was a fellow worker, who stated that he also stole coins and assisted the accused to steal coins - He testified under a promise of immunity and under the protection of the Evidence Act - The Manitoba County Court ruled that it would be dangerous to convict the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of his fellow worker, who was his accomplice, but found there was sufficient corroborating evidence - See paragraphs 14 to 15 and 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 5512

Evidence - Testimony of accomplices - Accomplice - What constitutes - The accused, who worked in a coin room of a city, was accused of stealing large amounts of coins - One of the witnesses against him was his past homosexual lover, who stated that he helped the accused roll and deposit a large amount of coins on one occasion - The Manitoba County Court held that the accused's lover was not his accomplice - See paragraphs 16 to 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 5512

Evidence - Testimony of accomplices - Accomplice - What constitutes - The Manitoba County Court stated that the receiver of stolen goods is an accomplice of the thief - See paragraph 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 5515

Evidence - Testimony of accomplice - Corroboration - What constitutes - The Manitoba County Court stated that incredible testimony cannot constitute corroboration - See paragraph 17 - The County Court stated that for evidence to be corroborated is not necessary that it be consistent with no other rational conclusion but the guilt of the accused, but that it is sufficient if it is more consistent with guilt than innocence - See paragraphs 19 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

D.P.P. v. Kilbourne, [1973] 1 All E.R. 440, appld. [para. 17].

R. v. Boyce (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 16; 7 O.R.(2d) 561; 28 C.R.N.S. 336, appld. [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McWilliams, Canadian Criminal Evidence, p. 430 [para. 18].

Phipson on Evidence (12th Ed.), p. 684 [para. 18].

Counsel:

N. Cutler, for the Crown;

R. Tapper, for the accused.

This case was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before JEWERS, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court Judges' Criminal Court for the Eastern Judicial District, who delivered the following judgment on May 2, 1980: