The Court, having determined the Principles it will be guided by, as regards Violation of Law, Contract, or Directives, will now consider the Element of Dishonestly before considering what it will call, The Quadruplet Modes of Misappropriation, Conversion, Use and Disposal. This is deliberately set out first, so that the Court will consider the Evidence in the light of the Quadruplet Modes and thereafter, determine the Substantive Offences alleged to have been committed. The Prosecution is mandated to prove through all the Counts of Offences that the Defendant committed these Offences in Violation of any Direction of Law, prescribing the Mode in which such Trust is to be discharged or in Violation of any Legal Contract, Express or Implied, which were made touching on the Discharge of such Trust and that he did so, Dishonestly. PROSECUTION’S 4th DUTY TO PROVE: DISHONESTLY The Fourth Element to be established by the Prosecution Beyond Reasonable Doubt is whether the Defendant committed the Offences in the Charge, dishonestly. The DISHONEST INTENT, which is the required Mens Rea, must be evident in all of the Defendant’s Actions. A Dishonest Intention is an essential ingredient of Criminal Breach of Trust. Further, intention may frequently be presumed from the consequences of the act, as a Person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. See WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE VOLUME 2 PAGE 42 PARTICULARLY AT PARAGRAPH 242. The word “Dishonesty” means is to act without honesty. It is used to describe a Lack of Probity, Cheating, Lying, or being Deliberately Deceptive or a Lack in Integrity, Knavishness, Perfidiosity, Corruption or Treacherousness. Dishonesty is the fundamental component of a majority of Offences relating to the Acquisition, Conversion and Disposal of Property, whether Tangible or Intangible. As described by STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, SEVENTH EDITION, VOLUME 1 AT PAGE 731, “Dishonest” for the purposes of Accessory Liability for Breach of Trust, is a Person is not dishonest, unless his Conduct is dishonest by Ordinary Standards of Reasonable and Honest People. Reference was made to the Case of TWINSECTRA LIMITED VS YARDLEY (2002) ALL E.R. PAGE 377 (HOUSE OF LORDS) Section 16 of the Penal Code Act defines “Dishonestly” as, “A Person is said to do a thing “dishonestly”, who does that thing with the intention of causing a wrongful gain to himself or another or of causing wrongful loss to any other Person.” By wrongful gain this was defined under Section 13 of the Act, as gain by unlawful means of Property to which the Person gaining, is not legally entitled. The Penal Code Act also went further to define what is meant by wrongful loss in Section 14 to mean, the loss by unlawful means of Property to which the Person losing it, is legally entitled. Under Section 15, a Person is said to gain wrongfully when such Person retains wrongfully, as well as when such Person acquires wrongfully, and a Person is said to lose wrongfully when such Person is wrongfully kept out of any Property, as well as when such Person is wrongfully deprived of Property. The Decision in ONUOHA VS THE STATE (1988) 7 SC PT 1 PAGE 74 AT PAGE 94 recognized that it is sufficient to construe dishonestly in its natural meaning, i.e., Intention to Cheat, Deceive or Mislead.See also His Lordship, PETER-ODILI, J.C.A. (AS HE THEN WAS) in the case of HON. YAKUBU IBRAHIM & ORS VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2010) LPELR-8984 (CA) Per (P. 18, PARAS B-E). Further reference is made to the cases of TIRAH VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1973) NNLR PAGE 143 (CA); OKONKWO VS COMISSIONER OF POLICE (1985) HCNLR PAGE 108