R. v. Severine Tarasio, Crim. Rev. 21-D-70; Georges, C. J.

 

R. v. Severine Tarasio, Crim. Rev. 21-D-70; Georges, C. J.

The accused was convicted by a magistrate of contempt of court under summary proceedings. The record read: “Court: In this present circumstances the court clerk having been aware that his case was to be heard today and having been aware that this case was to be heard today and having been informed that the witnesses present in court, he stubbornly refused the court order to produce the file because it is not on the cause list. Pros: The clerk was aware since Friday that Criminal Case No. 20/70 was supposed to be heard today although it was originally fixed to be heard on 18.3.1970. Court: his behaviour in court was contemptuous and he was still insisting not to produce this file. I them ordered the court orderly to escort the accused (the clerk now) to go and lock for the file and at the same time be charged with contempt of court. He went and took over 20 minutes trying for the hidden file and after sometime he brought the file reluctantly.

In view of this court is of the view that the court holds such behaviour and demeanour is contemptuous to court c/s 114 (1) of the Penal Code. Sentence: I therefore fine the accused Shs. 400/- or one month’s jail.”

            Held: (1) “It is to be noted that the record contains no statement made by the accused clerk from the moment the proceedings began till the sentence was imposed. At no time was he told with what he was being charged or asked to state reasons why he should not be punished. Indeed the particular charge on which he was being punished is not mentioned until immediately before sentence is imposed. It needs no reflection to relies that such proceedings go contrary to the most elementary rules of a fair hearing which the Court seeks to safeguard. It is distressing indeed that the magistrate should himself be the offender. Assuming that the accused took 20 minutes to bring the file might it not have been that a search was needed which took that long. Should the magistrate not have asked the accused for the reason for the delay and noted his explanation. What reliance can one place on the magistrate’s opinion that he accused brought the file reluctantly when the facts on which this observation is based have not been given and any explanation which the accused might have given not called for? Again can one rely on the bald statement that the clerk “stubbornly refused the court order to produce the file in question and insisted that he cannot bring the file because it is not on the Court list” – when the actual words of the clerk have not been recorded as they could so easily have been. Had the words been recorded this Court looking at the file would have been able to form its own impression as to whether the clerk had been stubbornly resisting or whether he had merely been explaining why he had not in fact brought the file.” (2) “The proceedings for contempt must be quashed. The sentence is set aside. The fine or any part thereof which has been paid must be refunded to the clerk.”