R. v. Petrol s/o Kakimala, (PC) Crim. App. 590-M-66; 14/4/67; Platt, J.

R. v. Petrol s/o Kakimala, (PC) Crim. App. 590-M-66; 14/4/67; Platt, J.

Accused was convicted of theft. After the close of the evidence, but before judgment was entered, the court investigated accused ’s character. The magistrate called accused ’s father, who said accused stole from time to time, and had been in prison eight times. Accused denied this, but was not given a further opportunity for rebuttal or cross examination. The father had sent his son away from home more than thirty years ago.

            Held: (1) An accused ’s character must not be put into evidence until after a judgment of conviction has been entered. Such evidence is highly prejudicial and proves nothing as to the offence charged. (2) This was not so clear a case that the magistrate could not have been influenced by the character evidence. Conviction quashed.