Paulo s/o Mathias v. R. Crim. App. 117-D-70; 17/4/70; Georges, C.J.

Paulo s/o Mathias v. R. Crim. App. 117-D-70; 17/4/70; Georges, C.J.

The appellant in this case was charged with two offences against the Fauna Conservation Ordinance – being in possession of Government Trophy and failing to report to the Licencing Officer his possession of the trophy. The particulars alleged that on 19^th December, 1969 at about 5 p.m. at the police lines the appellant had unlawfully been in possession of buffalo skin. The second count alleged that on the same date at the same time ant at the same place he had failed to report to the licencing officer of the Game Division that he was in possession of the said skin. The record shows that the charges were read over and explained to the accused and that he replied as follows:- “1st count: It is true I was found in possession of a buffalo skin. 2nd count: it is true I did not report my possession of the buffalo skin to the Game authority.” This was entered as a plea of guilty on both counts. Thereafter the record continues: - “Fact of the charge. Facts as charged.” This note was signed by the magistrate. The following statement then appears: - “Accused has pleaded guilty to his two charges. I therefore convict him on his own pleas of guilty.”

            Held: (1) “It has been pointed out by this Court that a plea of guilty must contain an unequivocal admission of every ingredient unnecessary to constitute the offence with which the accused person is charged. It is so simple to comply with this well known direction that one cannot be amazed by the number of occasions in which magistrates, clearly through negligence, fail to give the attention which the matter deserves, with the result that much time and effort are wasted in successful appeals.” (2) “The charge alleged that the appellant was in unlawful possession of a buffalo skin. When called upon to plead all that the appellant admitted was that he had been found in possession of a buffalo skin. There was no admission of the unlawfulness of the possession.” (3) “The second count alleged an offence against section 48 of the Ordinance. This creates the offence of failing to report to the officer of a Game Division forthwith any Government trophy which comes to one’s possession. There is no admission on the part of the defendant that he did not do this. All he admitted was that he did not report to the Game authority.” (4) “Quite often an equivocal plea in these terms can be remedied by a full statement of all the facts needed to constitute the offence, and an admission by the

accused person that these facts are true. In this case there was no full statement of facts. Except in the most trivial of traffic offences (and even then the practices is deprecated) the facts should not be entered merely “as charged”. They should be set out in full. Even if the facts had been set out in full the plea would not have been proper because there is no note on the record that the accused person admitted the facts as charged. The pleas of guilty are, therefore, clearly equivocal and the appeal must be allowed.”