Tatham vs Uga – clr volume 2 page 169

In the case between the Crown (prosecution) and three defendants charged with unlicensed digging for plumbago, the key issue considered was whether a bona fide mistake by the defendants regarding the ownership status of the land could serve as a defense under the Forest Ordinance No. 10 of 1885, and whether the prosecution sufficiently established that the land was forest land at the disposal of the Crown. It was held that a specific state of mind was not an element required for conviction under the Ordinance, and that the onus fell on the prosecution to prove the land’s requisite legal status. The holding reaffirmed that insufficient proof on this essential negative requires acquittal, relying on principles of evidentiary burden in criminal prosecution. The outcome underscored the necessi