Criminal procedure and practice-Framing of charge-Charge to contain details showing precise nature of offence-Plea-If accused's apparent intention is not to plead guilty, the Court must not accept the plea as one of guilty however. it is worded-Duty of Court to investigate mitigating circumstances alleged in plea of guilty.
Case summary
The accused, a Mkikuyu tribesman, was charged with an offence against a curfew order made under section 64 of the Police Ordinance. The particulars of the charge were very brief and did not specify either the nature of the curfew order or the time and place at which the accused was alleged to have been found breaking it. His plea consisted of a long statement of such a nature that it was apparent that he did not intend to plead guilty. The magistrate, however, recorded one sentence of the plea which he accepted as a plea of guilty.
After convicting the accused, he proceeded to pass sentence on him without investigating whether or not the remaining facts alleged in the plea were true. These facts, if true, considerably mitigate the offence.
The accused appealed against his conviction. As a plea of guilty had been recorded, the case was dealt with on revision.
Held (19th May 1956):
The charge was bad as it did not contain details showing the precise nature of the offence.
The accused obviously intended not to plead guilty. The Magistrate should have had regard to the effect of the whole plea and should not have taken one sentence in isolation and accepted it as a plea of guilty.
Even if the plea could have been properly accepted as one of guilty, the Magistrate had a duty to investigate mitigating circumstances alleged in it before passing sentence.
Conviction and sentence set aside.
Reported by:
I. R. Thompson, Esq., Resident Magistrate.
