R. v. Macdonal Lenge, Crim. Rev. 14-A-67; 30/6/67; Platt, J.

R. v. Macdonal Lenge, Crim. Rev. 14-A-67; 30/6/67; Platt, J.

In a prior action, accused were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm. Prior to trial, the complainant requested permission to withdraw his case and they were discharged under the provisions of paragraph 22(1) of the Primary Court Criminal Procedure Code. About one year later they were charged in the present action with robbery with violence. (P.C. ss. 285, 286.) Accused were acquitted upon the ground that they could not be tried again for a crime arising out of the same facts as those involved in the Primary Court action. The Republic requested the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

            Held: (1) The District Court Magistrate erred in finding that the dismissal of the charge under paragraph 22 (1) of the Primary Court Criminal Procedure Code was a bar to the present action.(2) Although the acquittal was erroneous, the High Court has no jurisdiction to alter, or reverse an order of acquittal by way of revision. The Republic’s application for revision was incompetent. The court stated, obiter; The result is unfortunate and the Republic should advise the complainant of some other way by which he might obtain redress .