%20(1).png)
R. v. Edward Michael, Dist. Ct. Crim. Case. 44-Mpwapwa-67, 2/12/67, Inspection Note by Biron J.
Accused were charged with stealing groundnuts. After the first prosecution witness had testified, they objected that the trial magistrate had previously convicted them of offences and requested that the trial be held before another magistrate.
The case was referred to the High Court for a ruling on this request.
Noted: The magistrate has absolute discretion in such circumstances to continue with the case or to transfer it under section 78(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that the bench or prosecutor is aware of a previous conviction, or even that the magistrate has previously convicted accused, does not require that the case be transferred, though the position may be different if the magistrate sits with lay assessors.
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
.png)
%20(1).png&description=R. v. Edward Michael, Dist. Ct. Crim. Case. 44-Mpwapwa-67, 2/12/67, Inspection Note by Biron J.){kind=link}
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.