LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Charge — Variance — Conviction for Offence Disclosed by Evidence — Fair Hearing
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Conviction for an offence disclosed by the evidence is permissible without re-arraignment, provided the offence arose directly from the facts of the main charge and is sufficiently connected, and no denial of fair hearing occurs.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Kareem v. FRN (2002) NLC-3352001(SC) at pp. 16–17; Paras D–A.
"This statutory provision, I must observe has only put into statutory form what had been the practice in the courts to convict upon offences disclosed by the evidence before the court other than the offence for which the accused was charged. In such a situation, the accused person is usually not called upon to plead afresh to the charge, provided the offence for which he was to be convicted arose directly from the facts disclosed in the evidence led in the main charge and sufficiently connected with the original charge for which the appellant was charged. In such a situation the denial of fair hearing cannot be canvassed successfully, as the appellant is taken to have pleaded to the charge prior to his trial."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A court may convict for an offence disclosed by the evidence even if different from the charge, without requiring re-arraignment. The offence must arise directly from the facts of the original charge and be sufficiently connected. The accused is deemed to have pleaded to the facts. The principle does not violate fair hearing. The accused is not prejudiced because the facts were before the court. The rule applies the common law practice of alternative conviction. The court must ensure that the accused had notice of the facts. The power is discretionary. The principle promotes judicial efficiency. The accused’s defence to the original charge addresses the same facts.