|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2021 |
|
|
Criminal revision requires a specific order, finding or sentence; absent that, the High Court may not intervene.
Criminal revision – jurisdictional limits – revision available only where there is a specific finding, sentence or order to be questioned; High Court cannot call for record of ongoing trial absent such order; s.50(2) CPC requirement to afford DPP and accused opportunity to be heard.
|
30 March 2021 |
|
Bail refused: elderly surety and risk of witness interference in serious familial rape charge outweighed exceptional circumstances.
Bail pending trial; constitutional right v. judicial discretion; exceptional circumstances under Trial on Indictments Act; sufficiency of LC1 introductory letters as proof of sureties’ residence; seriousness of offence and familial relationship to victim as grounds to refuse bail.
|
30 March 2021 |
|
DNA paternity exclusion does not negate proof of non-consensual intercourse; accused convicted of rape.
Criminal law – Rape – Ingredients: carnal knowledge and absence of consent by threats or violence. Identification – Known accused, daylight identification and corroborative surrounding circumstances. Medical evidence – hymenal rupture and injuries consistent with recent sexual intercourse. Forensic evidence – DNA paternity exclusion does not disprove occurrence of non-consensual intercourse. Burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused bears no legal burden to prove innocence.
|
30 March 2021 |
|
The accused convicted of rape: medical, identification and circumstantial evidence outweighed DNA paternity exclusion.
Criminal law – Rape – Carnal knowledge and lack of consent – Identification and corroboration – Medical evidence confirming recent intercourse – DNA paternity evidence relevant to parentage but not dispositive of rape – Burden of proof remains on the prosecution (Woolmington principle).
|
30 March 2021 |
|
Application to appeal out of time dismissed for failure to show good cause and absence of arguable grounds.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal out of time – good cause requirement – effect of guilty plea on right of appeal (limited to legality and severity of sentence) – impact of COVID-19 on access to court and prison facilitation – absence of grounds/memorandum and prior dismissed applications as indicators of lack of diligence.
|
26 March 2021 |
|
Appellate court acquitted the appellant where weak, uncorroborated circumstantial evidence and mismatched recovered items undermined the theft charge.
Criminal law – Theft – Requirements: property capable of being stolen, fraudulent taking, intention to permanently deprive, participation; Circumstantial evidence – must be incompatible with innocence and free from other reasonable hypotheses; Appellate review – duty to re-evaluate evidence; Discrepancy between charged property and recovered items undermines prosecution’s case; Conviction unsafe – acquittal and return of exhibits.
|
26 March 2021 |
|
Appellate court acquitted the applicant where prosecution failed to prove malice/intent to injure in a poisoning charge.
Criminal law – Maliciously administering poison – Requirement to prove malice/intent to injure under section 221 – Appellate re-evaluation of evidence – Consent and expected side-effects – Recklessness insufficient for conviction.
|
26 March 2021 |
|
A Grade I magistrate’s fine exceeding the statutory limit under section 162(1)(b) is illegal and set aside.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Limits on magistrates’ sentencing powers – Section 162(1)(b) Magistrates Courts Act – Fine imposed by Grade I magistrate exceeding statutory limit held illegal and set aside. Criminal procedure – Revision – Remedy where sentence is ultra vires – remittal for lawful re-sentencing. Sentencing practice – Separation of fines and compensation (section 197) to avoid misinterpretation.
|
24 March 2021 |
|
Sentence for vehicle theft affirmed but reduced by eight months remand credit under Article 23(8).
Criminal law – sentencing discretion – appellate interference only for wrong principle or manifestly excessive/unduly lenient sentence; Constitutional remand credit – Article 23(8) requires deduction of time spent in lawful custody prior to completion of trial; Theft of motor vehicle – deterrence and punishment considerations.
|
24 March 2021 |
|
Sentence for vehicle theft confirmed but reduced by eight months to reflect time spent on remand.
Criminal law - Sentencing - Appellate interference only where wrong principle or manifestly excessive/unduly lenient; Constitutional requirement (Art 23(8)) to deduct remand time from sentence; Theft of motor vehicle - deterrent sentencing.
|
24 March 2021 |
|
Court confirmed concurrent 7-year sentences for vehicle theft but reduced them by eight months' remand credit.
Criminal law – Sentencing – appellate interference with trial court sentencing discretion – permissible only where wrong principle applied or sentence manifestly excessive. Constitutional law – Article 23(8) – mandatory credit for periods spent in lawful custody on remand when imposing imprisonment. Theft – motor vehicle theft – deterrent sentencing considerations.
|
24 March 2021 |
|
Concurrent seven‑year sentences for vehicle theft confirmed but reduced by eight months remand credit.
Criminal law – Sentence – Appellate interference only where wrong principle or manifestly excessive/manifestly too low; Constitutional entitlement to credit for time spent on remand (Article 23(8)); Theft/stealing of motor vehicle – concurrent sentences; Sentencing discretion and deterrence.
|
24 March 2021 |
|
Extension of time to file criminal appeal granted due to holiday delays, prison stationery shortages and impecuniosity.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time to file appeal – Section 31 Criminal Procedure Code Act – discretionary relief – requirement to show good cause and absence of dilatoriness. Grounds considered: impecuniosity, lack of legal access, prison stationery shortage and Christmas/holiday period delays – accepted as sufficient cause.
|
19 March 2021 |
|
Extension of time to appeal granted where holiday delays, lack of resources and prison procedures prevented timely filing.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time to file appeal – Section 31 Criminal Procedure Code Act – Good cause required; impecuniosity, lack of legal access, lack of stationery and holiday delays can constitute sufficient cause; applicant’s non-dilatoriness and placing papers before OC Prison relevant.
|
19 March 2021 |
|
Applicant granted extension to file appeal out of time due to holiday-related lack of access and reasonable delay.
Criminal Procedure Code Act s31 - extension of time to file appeal; good cause standard; delays due to impecuniosity, lack of legal services and holiday-related reduced access; prison sanctioning and diligence.
|
19 March 2021 |
|
Application to revise a guilty-plea conviction as a civil contract dispute dismissed for lack of jurisdictional illegality and abuse of process.
Criminal procedure – revision of magistrates’ conviction – jurisdiction of Grade I magistrate under Magistrates Courts Act; guilty plea and assessment of evidence; civil disputes versus criminal charges; perceived abuse of revision to delay execution of orders.
|
19 March 2021 |
|
Bail refused where asthma was managed in custody and the accused faced a very serious charge with risk of interfering with investigations.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Trial on Indictments Act ss.14–15 – "Exceptional circumstances" and "grave illness" requirement – medical certificate must show illness incapable of adequate treatment in custody. Evidence – Medical evidence – asthma managed in prison does not constitute exceptional circumstance under s.15(3)(a). Public interest – Seriousness of offence and risk of interfering with investigations relevant to bail discretion.
|
18 March 2021 |
|
High Court stayed criminal proceedings to avoid abuse where identical civil proceedings on document authenticity were pending.
Criminal v Civil proceedings – Stay of criminal proceedings where identical issues (authenticity of letters of administration) are pending in civil/family court; Abuse of process; High Court power to call for records and revise magistrates’ proceedings (sections 17, 48, 50).
|
18 March 2021 |
|
Victims’ injuries and theft proved, but unreliable identification and missing exhibits led to acquittal.
Criminal law – aggravated robbery and grievous harm; medical evidence (PF3) corroboration; visual identification — need for caution; identification parade procedure and admissibility; failure to tender crucial exhibits and produce forensic analysis; burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt; alibi succeeding where identity is not proved.
|
4 March 2021 |
|
Identification shortcomings prevented robbery conviction; accused convicted of receiving stolen property under recent-possession doctrine.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – elements: theft, violence/threat, use of deadly weapon established by complainant evidence and medical report; identification of accused defective. Identification evidence – contradictions between witnesses and absence of identification parade undermine placing accused at scene. Circumstantial evidence – recent possession doctrine: possession of stolen phone raises presumption of theft or receipt absent reasonable explanation. Trial on Indictment Act, s.87 – conviction on lesser cognate offence (receiving stolen property) permissible where facts reduce charged offence.
|
4 March 2021 |
|
Victim’s corroborated assault and loss of firearm proved, but delayed identification and no proof of a deadly weapon led to acquittal.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, violence, possession/use of deadly weapon, participation – prosecution must prove all beyond reasonable doubt. Identification evidence – delayed identification parade (about one year) can be unreliable and unsafe to convict. Evidence – medical P.F.3 can corroborate assault but does not substitute proof of identity or weapon.
|
4 March 2021 |
|
Court granted bail pending trial, finding fixed abode and substantial sureties, imposing cash deposit and surety identification conditions.
Criminal law — Bail pending trial — Presumption of innocence and right to personal liberty — Fixed place of abode and sufficiency of sureties — LC1 introductory letter admissibility — Requirement for surety identification; discretionary grant of bail under Trial on Indictments Act and Constitution.
|
3 March 2021 |