Masika s/o Nusurupia v. R., Crim. App. 31-A-67, 2/12/67, Seaton J.

Masika s/o Nusurupia v. R., Crim. App. 31-A-67, 2/12/67, Seaton J.

Accused was convicted of cattle theft. During the course of the trial the accused responded to a query by the court: “Yes, I have been charged with the offence of stealing of coffee in 1960, I was found guilty and was imprisoned for 6 months in jail. (The trial record records the testimony given by participants, but not the question asked.)

            Held: (1) “It would appear from this reply that the court asked the appellant a question tending to show that he had committed or been convicted of a previous offence or that he was of a bad character.” [Citing Evidence Act, sec 56(4).] (2) The Court then had to decide whether this irregularity or error had in any way occasioned a failure of justice. [Citing Magistrates’ Courts Act, sec. 32 (2).] Because other irregularities had also taken place during the trial, conviction was quashed.