Salawu Atunde V. Commissioner Of Police (1952)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West Africa Court of Appeal

Criminal Law and Procedure—Rights of defendant called upon for his defence—Reasons for judgment.
Criminal Procedure Ordinance—Sections 245, 286, 287 (1) (a), and 288. Magistrates’ Courts (Appeals’) Ordinance, section 21 (3)—Reasonsfor decision.

Facts

Put briefly, section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance requires reasons to be given for the decision, but the proviso largely nullifies that requirement in the case of a Magistrate; though section 21 (3) of the Magistrate’s Courts(Appeals) Ordinance contemplates that reasons will be transmitted with the record.

Section 286 provides that at the end of the prosecution case the defendant shall be discharged if no case has been made against him to answer, or, if a case has been made out, be called upon for his defence. And section 287 (1) (a) provides that if the defendant has no counsel he shall be told his rights—viz.
that he may give evidence and be examined, or make a statement, or say nothing
—and be asked also whether he has witnesses; but non-compliance does not per se vitiate the trial if the Court called on the defendant for his defence and asked him if he had witnesses and heard him and his witnesses and other evidence, if any: section 288.

The appellant was being tried with another, who, he had told the police, had given him the stolen twine to sell. Neither was discharged at the end of the prosecution case; the record did not say whether the appellant was informed of his rights but merely that he elected to give evidence (an indication that he was so informed); and immediately after he testified in chief, he was convicted, with this added remark, “ I believe he was with second accused but I have not got the evidence—second accused discharged ”.

In the appeal to the Supreme Court the Judge thought there had been irregularities but they had not affected the appellant as he had not offered any explanation in his evidence about the bundles of twine he had sold to the witness called by the police.

The appellant appealed further and his Counsel complained that no reasons had been given for the conviction, and submitted that the appellant had been adversely affected because he was not asked if he had witnesses to call and owing to the co-defendant being put on his defence he was misled into thinking he would have the chance to examine his co-defendant’s witnesses and also the co-defendant, should he give evidence. Counsel for the police submitted it was a fit case for re-trial.

Held

As there was a bare possibility that the appellant might have been prejudiced by the irregularities of the co-defendant not being discharged before the defence began and of the appellant not being asked about witnesses, a re-trial would be ordered.

Per curiam: It is desirable that reasons be given except where the reason for a decision is quite obvious.

Appeal allowed: order for re-trial.