Damian Christopher v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 148-M-69, 29/4/69, Seaton J.

Damian Christopher v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 148-M-69, 29/4/69, Seaton J.

Appellant was charged in the primary court with stealing and housebreaking. When the charge was read over to the appellant, he pleaded guilty. Then the complainant was affirmed and stated the facts. The record indicates that after this the court noted: “No cross-examination by the accused. He pleads guilty on both counts.” Then the primary court magistrate convicted the appellant on both counts as charged.

            Held: “It will be noted from the above that the trial court did not follow meticulously the procedure outlined in the Primary Courts Criminal Procedure Code, the Third schedule to the Magistrates Courts Act, Cap. 537…….. In the instant case, it would appear that the appellant was never asked after the complainant stated the facts whether he agreed that the statement was true. The mere fact that the appellant did not cross-examine the complainant cannot be taken as an indication that he admitted the truth of all the fats. He may have thought that he would also at a later stage be permitted to give an explanatory statement. In his memorandum of appeal to this court, the appellant has alleged that though the court recorded that he pleaded guilty to both counts, this is not true as the statement which he gave before the court was not the one which was written in the judgment ….. the district court on appear was satisfied that the appellant had unequivocally pleaded guilty and hence dismissed his appeal again conviction ….. It would appear to me, however, that the provisions of section 27 and section 28 of the Primary Courts Criminal Procedure Code are precautionary and they are designed to obviate just the kind of situation which has arisen in the present case. After a plea of guilty is recorded, the court should proceed to hear the facts. It is not necessary for the complainant at this state to be affirmed. The court should then enquire of the accused person if he agrees that these facts are true, and if he does agree that they are true, then his signature should be taken or at least he should be invited to append his signature so that there is no doubt at a subsequent appeal that the appellant has unequivocally pleaded guilty. Because there was some irregularity in the procedure followed in the present case and because the appellant has alleged that he did not pleaded guilty and that the bicycle was given into his possession by the complainant and not stolen, it would appear that it would be safer to remit this case for re-trial. Appeal allowed.