CRABBE J.S.C.: In our view the learned trial judge clearly usurped the functions of the assessors when he directed them to hold that P.W.2 and P.W.4 were not accomplices. The question whether a witness for the prosecution is an accomplice or ought to be regarded as such, is a question of fact for the assessors or jury to determine.
The first ground of appeal argued by Mr. Larbi, counsel for the appellant, reads as follows:
“That the learned trial judge misdirected the court by holding that P.Ws.2 and 4 were not accomplices and thereby erred in law by failing to warn the court on the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice.”
The main question to determine therefore is whether on the evidence and in the circumstances of the case P.W.2 and P.W.4 were accomplices. In the case of R. v. Davies1(1), Lord Simonds, L.C. defined an accomplice as follows:
“On the cases it would appear that the following persons, if called as witnesses for the prosecution, have been trea…