Asumani s/o Mataka v. R., Crim. App. 422-D-68, -/9/68, Saudi J.

Asumani s/o Mataka v. R., Crim. App. 422-D-68, -/9/68, Saudi J.

Accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and malicious damage to property. When asked to plead to the charge he stated, “It is true”. However, he was given no opportunity to state whether he agreed or disagreed with the facts as outlined by the prosecutor. After the plea on each count he was found guilty on

That count by the magistrate. Thereafter, it was alleged that accused had a previous conviction, but he was given no opportunity to admit or deny the conviction.

            Held: (1) An accused must be given the opportunity to agree or disagree with the facts alleged in the charge. A plea of guilty should not be entered until he has agreed to the facts or the prosecution has modified the alleged acts so as to conform with accused ’s version. The prosecution may wish to modify the facts where the accused dis-agrees only with non-material details. [Citing Reg. v. Waziri s/o Musa, 2 T.L.R.(R) 30, 31; R. v. Azizi Mrimbi, Crim. Rev. 34 of 1964, High Court Bulletin No. 14, Case No. 204]. (2) Accused must be given the opportunity to admit or deny previous convictions, and evidence of the conviction must be adduced unless the conviction is admitted. Conviction must be adduced unless the conviction is admitted. Conviction quashed.