R. v. Ntibilanti, Crim. Rev. 53-M-71; 8/2/72; Jonnathan Ag. J.

 

R. v. Ntibilanti, Crim. Rev. 53-M-71; 8/2/72; Jonnathan Ag. J.

The accused who was medically certified as being 12 years old was charged with and convicted of housebreaking c/s 294(1) of the Penal Code and given a conditional discharge. The charge did not specify the felony that the accused intended to commit.

            Held: “Time and again this court has stressed that a charge of house breaking should specify the felony that was intended. It is a cardinal principle that a complaint should be couched is words which sufficiently inform the accused of the nature of the offence with which he stands charged. In the present case, having regard to the tender age of the accused, I cannot say that the failure to cite the felony intended did not result in miscarriage of justice.” (2) Comments of the court: “At the commencement of the trial the Prosecution produced a medical certificate to the effect that the accused was 12 years old. This is followed by the courts finding in these words: ‘Accused’s age is 12 years for the purpose of this case’. It is not clear from the record why the certificate was produced and the finding made, but it would appear that it was intended to treat the accused as a juvenile and so to proceed under the Children and Young Persons Ordinance. Whether he was prosecuted under this Ordinance – that remains doubtful, for although it was obligatory to proceed under the Ordinance, the record is silent if its provisions were complied with. It would have been preferable if the magistrate had put on record that the accused was tried as a juvenile and that the provisions of the legislation were complied with.” (3) Proceedings declare nullity but retrial not ordered, conviction quashed and the order of conditional discharge set aside.