R. v. Pancililo s/o Hassani, Crim. Rev. 23-D-1969, 18/3/69, Georges C. J.

R. v. Pancililo s/o Hassani, Crim. Rev. 23-D-1969, 18/3/69, Georges C. J.

The accused appeared to answer eight charges for offences under the Penal Code – three of housebreaking, c/s 294(1), with three related charges of stealing, c/s 265; and two charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, c/s 228(1). He was a deaf-mute, and it was not possible to communicate with him in any way. As a result, he could not plead.

Held: (1) “This was clearly a case falling under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the magistrate quite properly proceeded to hear the evidence tendered by the prosecution in answer to the charge. The accused took no part in the proceedings. At the close of the case for the prosecution, the magistrate stated that he had closely examined the case for the prosecution and was satisfied that there was a prima facie case established against the accused. He ordered that the accused person be detained during the President’s pleasure and that a copy of the proceedings be sent to the director of criminal Investigations. The detention should not be at the President’s pleasure. The accused should be detained at the pleasure of the person for the time being administering the Department of justice. (2) “It agree with the Director of Public Prosecutions that the magistrate applied the wrong test at the close of the prosecution’s case. The test is not whether a prima facie case has been made out, but whether the “court is of opinion that the evidence which it has heard would justify a conviction”. The two tests are different. At the close of the prosecution’s case, a magistrate may well hold that a prima facie case had been made out, and yet even if the defendant keeps quiet, he may in the end dismiss the charge because there is reasonable doubt.”