R v Sejane and Others (CRI/APN/37/90; CRI/REV/240/90) [1990] LSCA 90 (21 May 1990)

CRI/APN/37/90 CRI/REV/240/90 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between: R EX v RETSELISITSOE SEJANE MATSOFU SEJANE MOLISE MOKHONGOANE LEETO SEJAKE Before the Honourable the Chief Justice Mr. Justice B. P. Cullinan on the 21st day of May, 1990. For the Crown : Mr. P. L. Mokhobo, Crown Counsel For the Accused : Mr. M. M. Ramodibedi JUDGMENT Cases referred to: (1) R v Molotsi CRI/T/42/85 (Unreported); (2) R Nthethe (3) R v Louw (4) R v Tsehlana (5) R v Tankiso Setaka CRI/S/7/87 (Unreported). CRI/T/76/89 (Unreported); (1918) A. D. 344; CRI/REV/14/87 (Unreported); -2- The accused were convicted by the Subordinate Court for the Mafeteng District of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The learned Crown Counsel Mr. Mokhobo has very properly indicated that the Crown does not support the convictions. The four accused pleaded not guilty. Five witnesses gave evidence for the Crown and were cross-examined by the accused. The Crown closed its case. After an adjournment the learned trial Magistrate recorded; "Rights of accused explained to them." Thereafter all four accused gave evidence and indeed called a further witness in their defence. Section 175(3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure & Evidence Act 1981, reads as follows: "(3) If, at the close of the case for the prosecution, the court considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence charged in the charge, or any other offence of which he might be convicted thereon, the court may return a verdict of not guilty. (4) At the close of the evidence for the prosecution the judicial officer shall ask the accused, or each of the accused if more than one, or his legal representative, if any, whether he intends to adduce evidence in his defence and if he answers in the affirmative he or his legal representative - (a) may address the court for the purpose of opening the evidence intended to be adduced for his defence without commenting thereon; (b) shall then examine his witnesses and put in and read any documentary evidence which is a d m i s s i b l e ," I had occasion to deal with the provisions of sub-section (3) above in the cases of - R v Molotsi (1) and R v Nthethe ( 2 ). w h e r e in I made a specific r u l i n g. In both those cases h o w e v e r, an a p p l i c a t i on was made by the defence to acquit the accused, on the basis of a submission of no case to answer. In my view, the court is obliged to make a r u l i n g, even where no such a p p l i c a t i on is m a d e. Let us suppose that the defence ill-advisedly makes no such a p p l i c a t i o n, and the court n o n e t h e l e ss considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the o f f e n c e, then it seems to me that the court is under a duty (see R v Louw (3) per Innes C. J. at p. 3 5 2) to state and record its finding, and to acquit the accused, though no doubt the better course would be to first invite s u b m i s s i o ns from both p a r t i e s, due to the finality of such finding. S u b - s e c t i on (4) above indicates that at the close of the Crown case the court shall simply advise the accused of his rights and await the d e f e n c e, if any. It is obvious h o w e v e r, that a M a g i s t r a te cannot embark upon such course without first considering the evidence d i s c l o s e d, and I use the word 'consider' a d v i s e d l y, as that is the word used in s u b - s e c t i on ( 3 ). Upon such c o n s i d e r a t i o n, w h e t h er with or without a p p l i c a t i on or submission made to him in the m a t t e r, a M a g i s t r a te must make a f i n d i n g, of no case to a n s w er or o t h e r w i s e. If a M a g i s t r a te is o b l i g ed to r e c o rd the f o r m er f i n d i n g, then I c a n n ot but see that he is s i m i l a r ly o b l i g ed to r e c o rd a f i n d i ng that there is a case to a n s w e r. A g a i n, as a M a g i s t r a te is o b v i o u s ly o b l i g ed to r e c o rd such a f i n d i ng w h e re an a p p l i c a t i on has b e en m a de by the d e f e n c e, I c a n n ot t h en see why he s h o u ld not be s i m i l a r ly o b l i g ed to m a ke such r e c o rd w h e re no such a p p l i c a t i on is m a d e. I do not regard this as a c o u n s el of p e r f e c t i o n. For one t h i n g, a S u b o r d i n a te Court is a court of record and each and every f i n d i ng m a de by the court is a m a t t er or r e c o r d. S e c o n d l y, the duty and h a b it of m a k i ng such record a u t o m a t i c a l ly f o c u s es the M a g i s t r a t e 's mind on the q u e s t i on of w h e t h er or not a p r i ma f a c ie c a se has b e en m a de o u t, and u p on the c o u r t 's duty to a c q u it if it has n o t. T h i r d l y, the a c c u s e d, p a r t i c u l a r l y, as in this c a s e, an u n r e p r e s e n t ed a c c u s e d, is thus a d v i s ed of the p r e c i se s i t u a t i on r e a c h e d. In the p r e s e nt case no f i n d i ng was r e c o r d ed by the l e a r n ed trial M a g i s t r a t e. That I c o n s i d er to be an i r r e g u l a r i t y. It is not n e c e s s a ry for m e, h o w e v e r, to d e c i de w h e t h er the i r r e g u l a r i ty was such as to v i t i a te the p r o c e e d i n g s, as in the p r e s e nt case t h e re w as a g r e a t er i r r e g u l a r i t y, w h i ch has that e f f e c t. M u ch d e p e n ds on the f a c ts of e a ch c a s e, and it may be t h a t, in a p a r t i c u l ar c a s e, f a i l u re to m a ke a f i n d i ng in the m a t t er m i g ht r e s u lt in a c o n v i c t i on b e i ng set a s i d e. For p r e s e nt p u r p o s e s, it s u f f i c es to d r aw the a t t e n t i on of all M a g i s t r a t es to the d u t y, w h e re t h e re is no a p p l i c a t i on m a de by the d e f e n c e, of m a k i ng and r e c o r d i ng a f i n d i n g: w h e re the f i n d i ng is that t h e re is a c a se to a n s w e r, t h en I c o n s i d er t h at it s h o u ld be of the b r i e f e st n a t u r e, w i t h o ut n e c e s s a r i ly s t a t i ng any r e a s o ns or r e c o u n t i ng any e v i d e n c e; i n d e ed in v i ew of the n e c e s s i ty to u l t i m a t e ly c o m p o se and d e l i v er a j u d g m e n t, the l e ss r e f e r e n ce at that stage to the e v i d e n ce the b e t t e r. In the p r e s e nt c a s e, w h en the d e f e n ce had c l o s ed its c a s e, the l e a r n ed trial M a g i s t r a te s i m p ly r e c o r d ed a v e r d i ct of g u i l ty in r e s p e ct of each a c c u s e d. No r e a s o n ed j u d g m e nt was d e l i v e r e d. A f t er a d d r e s s es in m i t i g a t i o n, e a ch a c c u s ed w as s e n t e n c ed to five y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e n t. S u b s e q u e n t ly the l e a r n ed trial M a g i s t r a te c o m p i l ed a m a n u s c r i pt d o c u m e nt e n t i t l ed " R e a s o ns for J u d g m e n t ". It is u n d a t e d. T h at s i m p ly w i ll not d o. I r e p e a t, a S u b o r d i n a te C o u rt is a c o u rt of r e c o rd and the date of any a c t i on t a k en by a m a g i s t r a te in a c a s e, c r i m i n al or c i v i l, is a m a t t er of r e c o r d. T he l e a r n ed trial M a g i s t r a te h as a d d r e s s ed a l e t t er to the R e g i s t r ar of the H i gh C o u rt w h i ch i n d i c a t e s, i n t er a l i a, that the d o c u m e nt c o u ld not have b e en c o m p o s ed any e a r l i er than some t h r ee m o n t hs a f t er the trial had c o n c l u d e d. T h e re are two j u d g m e nt of t h is C o u r t, R v T s e h l a na (4) at p p. 4/5 and R v T a n k i so S e t a ka ( 5 ), s t a t i ng that a M a g i s t r a te in such c i r c u m s t a n c es is functus -6- o f f i c io and that the r e a s o ns for a j u d g m e n t, not s p e c i f i c a l ly r e s e r v e d, d e l i v e r ed ex p o st f a c t o, a re s i m p ly i r r e l e v a n t. In a ny e v e n t, the r e a s o ns f o r w a r d ed by the l e a r n ed trial M a g i s t r a te in this c a se are n ot r e a s o n s: t h ey a re f i n d i n g s. T he d o c u m e nt c o n t a i ns a list of " F a c ts F o u nd P r o v e d ". But it c o n t a i ns no r e a s o ns as s u c h, o t h er t h an to f i n a l ly say t h a t, "all a c c u s ed do not d e ny to h a ve a s s a u l t ed the c o m p l a i n a n t ". T h at is c e r t a i n ly c o r r e c t, but it w as a l l e g ed by s o me of the a c c u s ed that t he c o m p l a i n a nt w i e l d ed a b a t t l e - a x e, t h at he s t r u ck the f i r st a c c u s ed and that the o t h e rs t h e r e u p on d e f e n d ed the f i r st a c c u s e d, by the u se of s t i c k s. A ny f i n d i ng in the m a t t er t h e r e f o re d e p e n d ed on the i s s ue of c r e d i b i l i ty b e t w e en f i ve p r o s e c u t i on w i t n e s s es and f i ve d e f e n ce w i t n e s s e s. N o w h e re did the M a g i s t r a te m a ke any f i n d i ng of c r e d i b i l i t y: n o w h e re i n d e ed did the M a g i s t r a te e v er c o n s i d er the e v i d e n ce for the d e f e n c e. I t a ke the v i ew that t h e re is no j u d g m e nt b e f o re this c o u rt T h is is not the c o u rt of t r i a l: t h at w as the f u n c t i on of the c o u rt b e l o w. In my j u d g m e nt the t r i al w as c o m p l e t e ly v i t i a t ed by the a b s e n ce of a j u d g m e n t. It m ay be that in an a p p r o p r i a te c a se the H i gh C o u rt in s u ch c i r c u m s t a n c es m i g ht o r d er a r e - t r i a l, r a t h er t h an to s i m p ly set a s i de the c o n v i c t i on and s e n t e n c e. In the p r e s e nt c a se the learned trial m a g i s t r a te a p p a r e n t ly assumed that the R e v i s i on of P e n a l t i es O r d er 1 9 88 a p p l i e d. It did n o t; the t r a n s a c t i on took p l a ce b e f o re the a d v e nt of that O r d e r, on 1 4 th J u ly 1 9 6 8, so that the accused p e r s o ns w e re n o t, in any e v e n t, l i a b le to the m i n i m um s e n t e n ce of five y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e n t. T he a c c u s ed were g r a n t ed b a i l. At that stage they had served at least five m o n t hs in p r i s o n. I say "at l e a s t ", as it is not r e c o r d ed on the c h a r ge sheet w h e t h er or not the a c c u s ed were in c u s t o d y, or on b a i l, or s i m p ly s u m m o n ed to attend c o u r t. S u ch d e t e n t i on e q u a t es to a s e n t e n ce of 7½ m o n t hs i m p r i s o n m e n t, that i s, w i th r e m i s s i o n. In all the c i r c u m s t a n c es t h e r e f o re I do not c o n s i d er that this is a proper case in w h i ch to o r d er a r e - t r i a l. It would be u n s a fe to a l l ow the c o n v i c t i o ns to stand. T he f i n d i n gs and c o n v i c t i o ns and s e n t e n c es in the c o u rt b e l ow a re set a s i de and the four a c c u s ed a re a c q u i t t e d. D e l i v e r ed at M a s e ru T h is 2 1 st d ay of M a y, 1 9 9 0. B. P. CULLINAN CHIEF JUSTICE