R v Moses Kasesa (Criminal Review Case 1 of 1937) [1937] ZMHCNR 14 (31 December 1937)

[Vol. I R. v. MOSES KASESA. A Cr im in a l R e v ie w Case of 1937. Charges of housebreaking and theft—admission by accused person when charged by Court that he found and took the things is not a plea of guilty of housebreaking as well as theft. Section 187 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code directs that, if the accused person admits the truth o f the charge, his admission shall be recorded, as nearly as possible, in the words used by him; the practice is for the Magistrate to enter “ Guilty ” or “ Not Guilty ” opposite the word “ Plea ” on the printed form o f charge (Criminal Form No. 22) according as what the accused says appears to be an admission or a denial of guilt and to record as nearly as possible the words used by the accused in answer to the charge, or at least a summary; it is to be noted, however, that the Criminal Procedure Code does not make it compulsory to record the answer o f an accused person where the answer amounts to a plea o f not guilty, but it is permissible to do so. The point o f the present decision is that care must be taken not to enter a plea of guilty unless the accused’s answer clearly amounts to a full admission o f the whole of the facts constituting the offence. W ilson, A . J.: Please point out to the Magistrate that if the only statement made by the accused in answer to the charge was, “ I found the tilings in a trunk and took them ” , a plea o f guilty should not have been entered. These words cannot be regarded as an admission o f “ breaking and entering Evidence, however, was recorded and I think there is sufficient to support the conviction, though the wife o f the first witness should have been called to give evidence as to finding the hut door broken open, unless I have con­ the statement of the accused was in fact a plea o f guilty. firmed the sentence.