Hamisi Juma v. R., Crim. App. 512-M-68, 27/7/68, Seaton J.

Hamisi Juma v. R., Crim. App. 512-M-68, 27/7/68, Seaton J.

Accused, 19, was seen by a police inspector at a settlement and asked about his residence. Failing to show one, he was charged and convicted on his own plea – to a charge of “loitering “ and failing to show “means of subsistence” or “give a good account of himself” -  of being a rogue and vagabond c/s 1777(3), Penal Code.

            Held: (1)”Loitering” would be an offence under s. 176 (1), Penal Code, if accused were shown to have been a common prostitute. (2)Under s. 177(3), the accused must be “a suspected person” or “reputed thief”; and he must fail to give an account for himself “in such circumstances that the suspicion that he was sustaining himself dishonestly would attach to him”. On the strength of Tanzania authorities discussing the charged offence, “I would take the view that mere homelessness does not constitute roguishness”. [Citing R. v. Mtambara bin Selemani (1935) 1 T.L.R. 29; Omari Ramadhani and Abdallah Earagi v. R. (1955)2 T.L.R. 118]. Conviction quashed.