In re R. v. Georges Tumpes, misc. Civ. Cause 2-A-68, 17/9/68, Platt J.

In re R. v. Georges Tumpes, misc. Civ. Cause 2-A-68, 17/9/68, Platt J.

Accused was charged in District Court at Monduli with theft by public servant. Bail was granted after two persons had agreed to act as sureties. In addition, accused was ordered not to leave Monduli settlement and to report to the police later. Later, a dispute arose as to whether accused had reported to the police. The District Magistrate, after referring to a report made to him in chambers by the auditors investigating the case, cancelled the bail and remanded accused in custody. Accused than applied to the High Court for bail to be reinstated and for a change of venue for the trial.

            Held: (1) The Court has stated that the purpose of bail is to place the accused in the recognisance of sureties who are responsible for ensuring his appearance in court and who may reseize him if they have reason to believe he is about to flee. “If that be the purpose of bail, then there can be little ground for attaching special conditions, such as that the accused must report at certain times to the Police Station.” (2) “(T)he proper test in considering a change of venue, is not whether the Magistrate … is actually prejudiced against the accused, but whether there exists in the mind of the accused a  reasonable apprehension that he will not have a fair and

Unprejudiced trial … In deciding what is a reasonable apprehension .. regard must be had not to abstract standards of reasonableness but to the standard of honesty and the impartiality of the accused himself and his degree of education and intelligence.” [Citing Bhag Singh v. R., 1 T. L. R. (R) 133]. In view of the interview of the magistrate with the auditors and accused ’s education and character, his fear of prejudice is reasonable. Bail reinstated and venue transferred to the Arusha Resident Magistrates Courts.