The appellants were convicted of aggravated robbery. Evidence was given by the former wife of the first appellant as to events which occurred during the subsistence of the marriage.
Held:
(i) Even if the evidence of the first appellant's former wife had been incorrectly admitted as against him the remainder of the evidence was overwhelming against both appellants and the trial judge must inevitably have convicted.
(ii) The question left open whether the first appellant's former wife was a competent witness as to events taking place during the subsistence of the marriage.
