R. v. Magibo Makaba. Crim. Rev. 30-M-68, 5/6/68, Seaton J.

R. v. Magibo Makaba. Crim. Rev. 30-M-68, 5/6/68, Seaton J.

Accused was convicted of cattle theft. During the cross-examination of one of the prosecution witnesses, accused requested to see a statement which the wife of that witness had made at the police station, or to have that statement read to him. The wife had not been called as a prosecution witness.

            Held: The statement might have been admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act as part of the res gestae, “ i. e., as accompanying facts and constituent incidents which reveal the true nature of the fact in issue and disclose the motives of the parties or establish their connection with the fact under inquiry. Accused also might have used it in deciding whether to call the wife as a defense witness or in cross-examination of other witnesses. In these circumstances, it was prejudicial error for the magistrate to deny accused access to the statement without investigating the possibility that it would be of aid to him. Conviction quashed.