KWABENA WIAFE & 2 ORS
V.
THE QUEEN

^{*Page 308} Picture available inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by witnesses for the prosecution as to make the verdict unreasonable. We think that the learned trial Judge ought to have explained to the jury the nature of the corroboration required, but there was in fact corroboration of the evidence of the two witnesses concerned in material particulars, directly connecting the three appellants with the offence charged, and in our view it cannot lid that a miscarriage of justice has occurred by reason of the omission. The summing up was in fact very favourable to the three accused, and it would appear that the trial Judge leaned to the view that there should be an acquittal, but the questions at issue at the trial were purely questions of fact, and were therefore, for the determination of the jury. It was for them to say whether or they were satisfied that the guilt of the accused had been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, and to decide accordingly. The jury had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and, as I have already said, after a retirement to consider the case lasting some considerable time they returned unanimous verdict of guilty. In our view it cannot legitimately be said that the verdict in this case was unreasonable. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed.