|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2010 |
|
|
Unsworn evidence of a child of tender years improperly received must be discarded; without it, rape conviction cannot stand.
Evidence — Rape: proof of penetration is essential; primary evidence should come from the prosecutrix where applicable; medical evidence is corroborative. Child witnesses — section 127(2) Evidence Act and section 198(2) CPA: unsworn evidence of child of tender years admissible only after recorded findings of sufficient intelligence and understanding duty to tell truth. Close-relative witnesses — admissible but credibility must be treated with caution. Sentencing — life imprisonment illegal for offender under eighteen (s.131(2)(a) Penal Code).
|
12 October 2010 |
| September 2010 |
|
|
Appellate court quashed a lengthy manslaughter sentence for failure to consider mitigation and the deceased child's welfare.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – sentencing discretion must be judicially exercised; appellate interference where sentence is manifestly excessive or based on irrelevant considerations; mitigation — plea of guilty, remorse, first offender status, remand time; welfare of dependent child as material factor in sentencing.
|
2 September 2010 |
|
Appellant's counsel withdrew the criminal appeal under Rule 4(2)(a) with no objection from the respondent.
Criminal appeal — Withdrawal of appeal — Rule 4(2)(a) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Effect of respondent's non‑objection — Procedural disposal.
|
2 September 2010 |
|
|
2 September 2010 |
|
|
2 September 2010 |
|
|
2 September 2010 |
|
Appeal struck out as incompetent because the notice of appeal was lodged late and lacked the required prison endorsement.
* Criminal procedure – appeal procedure – notice of appeal as instituting document – time limit under Rule 61(1) – computation from date judgment pronounced in open court.
* Certified record discrepancies – omission of proceedings – relevance to calculation of appeal time.
* Prisoner litigants – Rule 68(1) endorsement requirement – absence of endorsement prevents deemed timely filing.
* Preliminary objection – competence of appeal – appeal struck out for invalid notice of appeal.
|
2 September 2010 |
|
An appeal based on a notice lodged out of time and not duly endorsed is incompetent and struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules 1979 – Rule 61(1) – time limit for lodging notice of appeal; Rule 68(1) – endorsement requirement for prisoner’s notice; competence of appeal; importance of accurate certified record of appeal.
|
2 September 2010 |
|
Appeal struck out because the notice of appeal was filed late and lacked the required prison endorsement.
Criminal procedure — computation of time for lodging notice of appeal under Rule 61(1) — determination of date of delivery of High Court judgment — effect of uncertified/omitted proceedings in record of appeal — prisoner’s notice of appeal: endorsement requirement under Rule 68(1).
|
2 September 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed where cumulative evidential and procedural defects created reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – robbery – adequacy and credibility of prosecution evidence; chain of custody and seizure of exhibits (s.24(b) Criminal Procedure Act); admissibility of statements – collective admission; failure to call crowd witnesses; appellate interference with concurrent findings of fact.
|
1 September 2010 |
|
|
1 September 2010 |
|
An appeal filed out of time and lacking the required prison‑officer endorsement must be struck out.
Criminal appeal — notice of appeal — mandatory 14‑day filing rule (Rule 61(1)) — prisoner’s notice procedure (Rule 68(1)) — requirement of prison officer’s signature/stamp — misframed applications for extension of time — appeal struck out for non‑compliance.
|
1 September 2010 |
| August 2010 |
|
|
|
31 August 2010 |
|
Accused rebutted inference from recent possession; conviction quashed for inadequate judicial analysis.
Criminal law – murder; doctrine of recent possession – requirement that accused fail to give reasonable explanation; evaluation of cautioned and extra‑judicial statements; witness credibility and appellate review of trial findings; necessity to analyse prosecution and defence evidence as a whole.
|
31 August 2010 |
|
|
31 August 2010 |
|
|
31 August 2010 |
|
|
31 August 2010 |
|
|
30 August 2010 |
|
|
30 August 2010 |
|
Defective PF3 and inconsistent prosecution evidence, together with an admitted caution statement of consent, warranted quashing the rape conviction.
Criminal law – Rape – Admissibility and evidential weight of PF3 – duty under section 240(3) to inform accused of right to call examining doctor; Caution statement admitted by accused binds prosecution and can undermine charge; Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence may entitle accused to acquittal; Compensation orders require opportunity for accused to be heard.
|
30 August 2010 |
|
|
27 August 2010 |
|
|
26 August 2010 |
|
|
24 August 2010 |
|
|
23 August 2010 |
|
Retracted confessions can support conviction if voluntarily made and credible; trial court decides age for sentencing.
* Criminal law – Confessions – Retracted confessions – Corroboration not essential where court is satisfied confession is voluntary and true.
* Evidence Act s.33 – Confession of co‑accused – conviction not necessarily dependent on corroboration.
* Admissibility – extra‑judicial and cautioned statements – voluntariness – role of Justice of the Peace’s testimony.
* Allegation of torture – late production of medical report (PF3) – credibility and timing of complaint.
* Sentencing – determination of age – trial court’s fact‑finding after inquiry not bound by medical opinion.
|
22 August 2010 |
|
|
21 August 2010 |
|
|
20 August 2010 |