R. v. William s/o Gabagumbi, Crim. Rev. 111-M-66; 21/1/67; Platt, J.

R. v. William s/o Gabagumbi, Crim. Rev. 111-M-66; 21/1/67; Platt, J.

The accused was convicted of uttering forged notes (Currency Notes Ordinance, Cap. 175, s. 6(1) ). The charge alleged that he uttered the notes knowing them to be forged, but it did not allege that he did so with intent to defraud. In his plea defendant stated, “I agree the notes were not genuine.” This statement was accepted as a plea of guilty.

            Held: (1) The charge was defective in that it did not allege that he uttered the forged notes with intent to defraud. (2) The plea did not state in terms that he admitted uttering the notes and, therefore, should not have been accepted as a plea of guilty. (3) After quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial the judge stated that if the accused is convicted on retrial, “the learned magistrate will not doubt take into account the time which will have elapsed from the date into account the time which will have elapsed from the date on which the accused was first brought to court to the date on which he is finally convicted, when imposing a further sentence”.