R. v. Kastumu bin Mathias, Crim. Sass. 11-Z-66, 14/3/67, Kimicha Ag. C. J.

R. v. Kastumu bin Mathias, Crim. Sass. 11-Z-66, 14/3/67, Kimicha Ag. C. J.

The accused had a dispute with the complainant, as a result of which the accused broke into the complainant’s house, hit his wife in the eye, and tried to strike the complainant with an axe. He was charged with doing an act intended to cause grievous harm c/s 205(b) of the Penal Decree, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and is triable only by the High Court. During the course of the trial, the accused raised as a defence the fact that he had been tried and convicted, and had served a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, for the acts set out above. The charges at the earlier trial, in a magistrate’s court, had been laid for criminal trespass, breading into complainant’s house, and assault causing actual bodily harm (for striking the wife). The third charge was coupled with the same charge that was laid in the present case; both were with-drawn upon discovery that the magistrate’s court lacked jurisdiction to try the charge under s. 205(b). The High Court found that the accused had committed the alleged acts, and that they amounted to a violation of s. 205(b).

Held: (1) “(T)he accused’s plea of autrefois convict could not be accepted, as the prosecution was technically right in charging him with three counts arising from the same offence …….” As he had not been tried on 1 of the counts earlier, it can now be raised before this, the proper forum.

            (2) “(H)aving regard to the circumstances of the historical background of the offence, it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment.” (Citing Criminal Procedure Decree, Cap. 14, s. 315(1), which provides for such action when, for any of several enumerated reasons, punishment would be “inexpedient.”