Mahloko and Others v R (CRI/A 51 of 91) [1994] LSCA 71 (31 March 1994)

1 C R I / A / 5 1 / 91 IN THE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the A p p e al o f: C H A B A S E O E LE E D W A RD M A H L O KO L E K H O T LA M A H L O KO T S A B A L I RA M A F O T HA 1st A p p e l l a nt 2nd A p p e l l a nt 3rd A p p e l l a nt v R EX R e s p o n d e nt J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n o u r a b le M r. J u s t i ce T. M o n a p a t hi A c t i ng J u d ge on the 31st day of M a r c h, 1994 This is an a p p e al from the d i s t r i ct of M o h a l e 's H o ek u n d er c a se n u m b er CR 8 1 / 91 in w h i ch the l e a r n ed m a g i s t r a te M r. A. V. M o r u t h a ne found the A p p e l l a n ts g u i l ty of a s s a u lt w i th i n t e nt to do g r i v i o us b o d i ly h a rm and t h e r e a f t er s e n t e n c ed these A p p e l l a n ts to i m p r i s o n m e nt for f i ve (5) y e a r s. T h at w as on the 23rd A p r i l, 1 9 9 1. O r i g i n a l ly A p p e l l a n t s, t h r ee a c c u s ed w e re c h a r g ed and these w e re the f o l l o w i ng C h a b a s e o e le E d w a rd M a h l o k o, L e k h o t la M a h l o ko and T s a b a l i ra M a f o t h a. It was a l l e g ed in their c h a r ge that on or a b o ut the 1 9 th A p r il 1 9 91 at or n e ar Q a l a k h e ng in t he d i s t r i ct of M o h a l e 's H o ek t he s a id a c c u s ed d id e a ch or o t h er or all of t h em a s s a u lt a p o l i c e m an n a m e ly D e t e c t i ve T r o o p er P e l e sa by s t a b b i ng h im w i th a k n i fe on t he l e ft s i de and a l so by h i t t i ng h im w i th f i s ts on t he h e ad and all o v er t he b o dy w i th an i n t e nt of i n j u r i ng h im or c a u s i ng s o me g r i e v o us b o d i ly h a r m. It w i ll be c l e ar t h at as a g a i n st the o t h er a c c u s ed the a p p e l l a nt w as f o u nd g u i l ty on h is o wn a d m i s s i on t h at is he a d m i t t ed g u i lt to the c r i me c h a r g e d. At t h at s t a ge w h at s h o u ld n o r m a l ly h a p p en is t h at t h e re s h o u ld be a s e p a r a t i on of t r i a ls in t he e v e nt t h at t he o t h er a c c u s ed do n ot a d m it g u i l t. T he M a g i s t r a te d e c i d ed t h en to d i r e ct t h at as r e g a r ds t h is a p p e l l a nt at o u t l i ne of the f a c ts in a c c o r d a n ce w i th S e c t i on 2 4 0 ( b) of t he C r i m i n al P r o c e d u re and E v i d e n ce P r o c l a m a t i on be m a d e. T h is w as c o r r e c t. It r e v e a l ed t h at on t he 1 9 th A p r il at Q a l a k h e n g, D e t e c t i ve T r o o p er P e l e sa w as t h e re at 1 0 . 2 0 p m, a c c u s ed w e re t h e re w i th o t h er p e o p l e, a c c u s ed t h en f o u g ht T r o o p er P e l e sa and a s k ed w hy he a r r e s t ed h im f or c ar t h e f t. T he s t a t e m e nt g o es f u r t h er to say t h at it w as t r ue as a l l e g ed t h at in t he p a st p o l i ce h ad t a k en a c t i on a g a i n st t he a c c u s e d, A c c u s ed p r o d u c ed the k n i fe and s t a b b ed p o l i c e m an on h is l e ft b a ck s i de and a g a in m a de o t h er s t ab w o u nd on the r i g ht s i de of t he p o l i c e m a n 's b a c k. O ne M a f o t ha r e f u s ed w h en p e o p le w a n t ed to s e p a r a te the a c c u s ed in f i g h t i ng t he p o l i c e m a n. A n o t h er p e r s on h e l p ed a c c u s ed in t he f i g ht by b e a t i ng the p o l i c e m an w i th f i s t s. At long last t h ey w e re s e p a r a t ed and T r o o p er P e l e sa l a t er r e p o r t ed the m a t t er at M o h a l e 's H o ek C h a r ge O f f i c e. T r o o p er P e l e sa w e nt to the M e d i c al O f f i c er on the 2 0 th A p r i l, 1 9 9 1. I n j u r i es w e re n ot s e r i o u s. T h ey w e re s u t u r ed by a M e d i c al O f f i c er and u n d er t r e a t m e nt as an out p a t i e n t. T h e re w e re no r e a s o ns m a k i ng the a c c u s ed to s t ab the p o l i c e m an w h i le on d u t y. I n d e ed the M e d i c al O f f i c e r 's r e p o rt w as a t t a c h ed m a r k ed e x h i b it A. T h at w as the end of the P r o s e c u t o r 's o u t l i n e. It w i ll be s e en that t h is a c c u s ed w as c o n v i c t ed a c c o r d i n g ly a f t er h a v i ng c o n f i r m ed that w h at the P u b l ic P r o s e c u t or w as t e l l i ng w as the w h o le t r u t h. W h at f o l l o w ed w as the a s p e ct of m i t i g a t i o n. In m i t i g a t i on the a c c u s ed s a ys : "I p r ay for m e r cy S i r, I a l so told T r o o p er P e l e sa to f o r g i ve m e. P l e a se do not g i ve me a h e a vy p u n i s h m e n t, it w as n ot my i n t e n t i on to f i g ht h i m. He f i r st " b i t" me up w i th a f i s t. He f i r ed n e ar me that is all I used that k n i f e, I am m a r r i ed no c h i l d r e n. I do m i ne w o r k. I get R 6 0 0 . 00 per m o n t h ," T h at is all as far as the m i t i g a t i on is c o n c e r n e d. It w i ll be v e ry c l e ar f r om h is a d d r e ss in m i t i g a t i on that he i n d i c a t es in no u n c l e ar t e r ms and that he w as f i r ed a t, t h at is a g un w as u s ed to s h o ot at h i m, W h at he did w as in s e lf d e f e n c e. T h is a c c u s ed p e r s on w as u n r e p r e s e n t e d. If w h at h a p p e n ed is to be b e l i e v e d, it m e a ns the a c c u s ed should not h a ve a d m i t t ed g u i lt to the c h a r g e. T he learned C o u n s el for the C r o wn h as a d m i t t ed that this in itself a m o u n ts to a m i s t r i a l, in that it w as i n c u m b e nt for the P r e s i d i ng O f f i c er to h a ve e n t e r ed a plea of not g u i l t y, in a way to q u a sh all the p r o c e e d i n gs as at the s t a ge and to c o m m e n ce de n o vo as it w e r e. T h is is w h at M r, S a k o a ne for the C r o wn s u b m i t t e d. T h is in i t s e lf d o es bring this c o m p l i c a t i o n, being as M r. S a k o a ne s u b m i ts that he w o u ld i n s t e ad a d v i se that m a t t er be tried de n o v o. T he g r o u nd of a p p e al of the A p p e l l a nt are as f o l l o w s: (a) T he o u t l i ne of the f a c ts d o es not d i s c l o se the o f f e n ce c h a r g e d. (b) T he l e a r n ed m a g i s t r a te erred and m i s d i r e c t ed h i m s e lf in law in f a i l i ng to a t t a ch due w e i g ht to the A p p e l l a n t 's plea in m i t i g a t i o n. (c) T he s e n t e n ce of five y e a rs i m p r i s o n m e nt i n d u c es a s e n se of s h o ck u n d er the c i r c u m s t a n c es of the c a s e. I m i g ht as well in this case i n d i c a te that in t e r ms of the m i n i m um s e n t e n c es law e x i s t i ng as time the time of the j u d g m e nt this s e n t e n ce of five y e a rs i m p r i s o n m e nt w o u ld be p r o p er and for an o f f e n ce with w h i ch the a c c u s ed w as c h a r g e d. But this b r i n gs in another complication namely that ; If the outline of the facts does not disclose an offence, what it means is that a lessor offence could be verdict. I must say that originally before Mr, Sakoane rose up to indicate that a mistrial had occured, I had a feeling that the whole proceedings be quashed meaning that an entry of not guilty be made. I have thereafter thought about this matter along the following line : It is very true that as he does admit the accused did cause the injuries, In the interest of justice, a proper verdict would be if self defence succeed, this person would be found guilty of a lessor offence namely common assault. I am inclined however, to say that we have a situation where this aspect hag not been investigated at all. These matters are complicated even more these days where you will find that the magistrate has not made a full written statement of his findings, Counsel in this case, referred me to the case of Malejone Mokemane vs DPP (C of A (CRI) 4/93). An offence was not disclosed in the Prosecutor's outline or alternatively that the outline of the statement in mitigation did disclose that there was a defence. The case went on appeal to the High Court and dismissed summarily in terms of Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, This dismissal had not been known to the accused nor to his representative for a period of about a year. An appeal was noted to the Court of Appeal which dealt w i th so m a ny a s p e c ts of the of the h i s t o ry of the c a se i n c l u d i ng the d e f e n ce or t he n a t u re of the c h a r g e. T h en the C o u rt of A p p e al had to c o m m e nt in t h is m a n n er at p a ge 11 of t he r e c o r d: " S h o u ld we as the C o u rt of A p p e al add an e p i l o g ue to the A p p e l l a nt c h a p t er of m i s a d v e n t u re by d e c l i n i ng to act b e c a u se we do not h a ve e x p l i c it j u r i s d i c t i on to do s o. I b e l i e ve n o t. J u s t i ce h as not b e en d o ne in t h is c a s e, In the c i r c u m s t a n c es set out a b o v e, I am of the v i ew that we s h o u ld i n t e r f e r e. T he q u e s t i on is h o w. Had it n ot b e en for the in o r d e r ly d e l a ys we c o u ld h a ve well sent the m a t t er b a ck to the c o u rt of f i r st i n s t a n ce for r e t r i al b e f o re a d i f f e r e nt m a g i s t r a t e. H o w e v e r, the s t a t e m e nt that j u s t i ce d e l a y ed is j u s t i ce d e n i ed in n ot an e m p ty s l o g a n. It is not i m p o s s i b le that s u ch a s t ep c o u ld r e s u lt in- f u r t h er d i s a d v e n t u r e. In any e v e nt h a v i ng a f i ve y e ar p r i s on s e n t e n ce h a n g i ng o v er y o ur h e ad for n e a r ly f i ve y e a r s, a p p e l l a nt w as c o n v i c t ed on A p r il 1 1 th 1 9 89 is long e n o u g h. I i n c l i ne to r e v i ew that a r o b u st a p p r o a ch r e q u i r es us to set a s i de the c o n v i c t i on and the s e n t e n c e. I w o u ld s u b s t i t u te the c o n v i c t i on of a s s a u lt w i th i n t e nd to do grievous bodily harm to one of guilty to common assault, and substitute for the sentence of five years imprisonment for one of six months imprisonment suspended for three years on condition that Appellant is not convicted on an offence involving an assault upon person or another which is committed during the period of suspension in respect of which she is sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment without an option of a fine." Court of Appeal went on to set aside both the conviction and the sentence in the manner I have prescribed. This judgment is very helpful in that it deals with this aspect of the disclosure of an offence and disclosure of a defence in both the Prosecutor's outline and the statement in mitigation very well. In this instant case we have an almost similar situation, but for the long delays. The Director of Public Prosecutions concede that both statements do not reveal that a case of assault with the intention to do grievous bodily harm has been proved and one is therefore faced with a situation where one may elect to sent this matter to the magistrate, or a retrial, or to impose a sentence that is commensurate with the verdict in the list of the competent verdicts, that is competent in the circumstances of this appeal. I have exercised a lot of thought the last time that Counsels were before me, that is on the 14th March 1994 when this matter came before me. I would enter a verdict of guilty of common assault and I would impose a sentence of 12 months imprisonment or a fine of M300.00, half of which is suspended for a period of three years on condition that the appellant is not convicted of an offence involving violence upon the person of another which is committed during the period of suspension. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the above conviction and sentence is substituted therefor. For the Appellant : Mr. Malebanye For the Respondent : Mr. Sakoane T. MONAPATHI ACTING JUDGE