Murray-Aynsley CJ:

In this case the appellant was convicted on a charge under s. 34(1) of Cap. 24.

In his grounds of judgment the learned Magistrate said: "the matter to be decided in this case is whether the explanation of the accused as to his possession of the bicycle was a reasonable and probable explanation and such that the Court was bound to accept his explanation."

It appears to me that this goes considerably beyond what is required of a person accused under this section and, therefore, the conviction cannot stand, even if the circumstances were such as to require an explanation, which is doubtful.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction quashed.

Appeal allowed.