Paulo Kemigani v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 233-M-68, 23/8/68, Seaton J.

Paulo Kemigani v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 233-M-68, 23/8/68, Seaton J.

Accused were convicted in Primary Court of malicious damage to property. The charge was not explained to the accused and they were given no opportunity to plead to it. Also the charge initially did not specify the date on which the offence took place.

            Held: (1) Sections 27 and 28 of the Primary Courts Criminal Procedure Code [Magistrates’ Courts Act, Cap. 537, Third Sch.] provides that the court shall read and if necessary explain the charge to the accused and shall either itself state the facts on which the charge is founded or require the complainant to do so. (2) In the particular facts of this case, the date of the offence was very important and the late amendment specifying the date prejudiced the accused. (3) Because of the failure to take a plea, the trial was a nullity, and the error is not curable. [Citing Walli Mohamed Damji v. Reg. (1956) w. T.L.R. (R) 137]. Convictions quashed.