|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2004 |
|
|
Applicant’s leave to appeal out of time dismissed where no notice of appeal existed and no good cause was shown.
Criminal procedure – section 361(a) CPA 1985 – requirement to give notice of intention to appeal within ten days – absence of notice precludes appeal. Criminal procedure – proviso to section 361 – admission of appeal out of time for good cause; applicant must explain delay. Evidence and credibility – false affidavit and failure to produce notice justify dismissal of application for leave to appeal out of time.
|
29 March 2004 |
|
Leave to appeal out of time dismissed where no notice of appeal was filed and the applicant falsely claimed otherwise.
Criminal procedure – notice of intention to appeal – requirement under section 361(a) of ten days; Leave to appeal out of time – proviso to section 361 – admission for good cause shown; Evidence and credibility – false affidavit about lodging notice of appeal fatal to application; Failure to produce notice or explain delay results in dismissal of application for leave to appeal out of time.
|
29 March 2004 |
|
Applicant’s attempt to revive a struck-out appeal was dismissed for circumvention and overwhelming incriminating evidence.
Criminal procedure — Appeal and review — Attempt to revive or pursue an appeal after prior dismissal for being time-barred — Abuse of process/circumvention of earlier order; strong identification evidence and related robbery allegations — Application dismissed.
|
29 March 2004 |
|
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed for inordinate unexplained delay and lack of prospects of success.
Extension of time to appeal – requirement to account for delay – corroborative evidence of illness – inordinate and unexplained delay – consideration of prospects of success in exercising discretion to extend time.
|
22 March 2004 |
|
Extension of time to appeal refused for unexplained delay and lack of prospects of success.
Extension of time to appeal; failure to account for delay; necessity of credible evidence (e.g., medical records) to excuse delay; requirement of prima facie prospect of success as a consideration for granting extension.
|
22 March 2004 |
|
Conviction unsafe where confession likely coerced, hearsay and written statements improperly admitted, and trial mismanaged.
Criminal law
rms and ammunition
dmissibility of caution statements oerced confessions and trial-within-a-trial; Evidence Act s34B
dmissibility of written statements of unavailable/deceased witnesses ompliance with proof, declaration and service requirements; Criminal Procedure s214 onsequences where successor magistrate acts on incompletely recorded evidence; Improper tendering of exhibits and possibility of planted evidence render conviction unsafe.
|
22 March 2004 |
|
|
22 March 2004 |
|
Extension of time to appeal refused for unexplained delay and because the intended appeal lacked merit.
Criminal procedure — extension of time to appeal — delay must be satisfactorily explained — illness after expiration of appeal period not a sufficient explanation — leave futile if intended appeal lacks reasonable prospects.
|
16 March 2004 |
|
Applicant’s uncorroborated claim of notifying prison authorities failed to justify extension of time to appeal.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to file notice of intention to appeal – statutory ten‑day period under s.361(a) – applicant’s burden to show sufficient cause.
|
16 March 2004 |
|
Rape conviction quashed because prosecution failed to prove complainant was under 18 and incapable of consenting.
Criminal law – Rape – statutory element of age – Whether complainant was under 18 and therefore incapable of consenting; failure of prosecution to prove age beyond reasonable doubt – appeal – conviction quashed.
|
16 March 2004 |
|
An appeal filed outside the statutory 30-day period without leave is incompetent and must be struck out.
Appeals — Time limit for appeals from district courts exercising appellate jurisdiction over Primary Courts — section 25(1)(b) Magistrates' Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. 2/1984) — 30-day limitation. Civil procedure — Extension of time to appeal — Rule 3, Civil Procedure (Appeals in Proceedings Originating in Primary Courts) Rules, 1963 — requirement to apply for enlargement of time and show good cause. Jurisdiction — High Court lacks power to hear appeals filed outside prescribed period absent leave to appeal out of time. Procedure — Failure to apply for extension obliges court to strike out time-barred appeal.
|
10 March 2004 |
|
|
10 March 2004 |
|
An appeal filed outside the statutory 30-day period without leave is incompetent and must be struck out.
Appeals — statutory time limit — Magistrates' Courts Act s.25(1)(b) — 30-day filing requirement for appeals from district court in Primary Court matters. Civil Procedure (Appeals in Proceedings Originating in Primary Courts) Rules, 1963 — Rule 3 — enlargement of time — requirement to apply for leave and show good cause. Jurisdiction — High Court cannot entertain appeals filed outside prescribed period without leave — appeal struck out. Service and costs — no order as to costs where respondent not served and did not appear.
|
10 March 2004 |
|
Where a crowd attack involved many participants and witness accounts conflicted, conviction failed for lack of proof identifying the appellant.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – assault during a crowd incident – necessity of proving which accused inflicted the injury. Criminal law – Multiple assailants – effect of many attackers and acquittal of co-accused on establishing common intent. Evidence – contradictions in prosecution witnesses – benefit of doubt to accused.
|
8 March 2004 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove who inflicted the grievous harm beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Grievous harm – Identification of assailant – Conflicting witness testimony – Failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt – No basis for common intention where co-accused acquitted.
|
8 March 2004 |
|
Conviction for grievous harm quashed where evidence failed to identify the assailant and common intent was unproven.
Criminal law – grievous harm – identification of assailant – contradictions in prosecution witnesses – acquittal of co-accused – common intention not established – benefit of doubt.
|
8 March 2004 |
|
Appeal against armed robbery convictions dismissed: identification and circumstantial evidence found sufficient; sentences upheld, corporal punishment set aside.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Elements of robbery under s.285 Penal Code – Identification evidence – Reliability of recognition and identification parade – Possession of recently stolen property as circumstantial evidence – Sentencing; concurrent terms and removal of unspecified corporal punishment.
|
8 March 2004 |
|
Charge under a repealed statute is invalid and cannot be cured by section 388; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – charges preferred under repealed statute – repeal abrogates prior law so no valid charge exists; Criminal Procedure Act s.388 cannot cure absence of legal basis for charge; sentencing – failure to consider statutory option of fine may render custodial sentence inappropriate.
|
8 March 2004 |
|
Charge under a statute repealed before institution cannot be cured; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Charge under repealed statute – Repeal abrogates earlier law so no offence exists – Section 388 CPA does not cure charge founded on non-existent statute; Sentencing – duty to consider and offer option of fine where law permits before imposing imprisonment; Plea equivocality – not decided where charge invalid at law.
|
8 March 2004 |
|
Unreliable identification, lack of proof of weapons, and irregular searches vitiated armed robbery convictions.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Reliability of eyewitness identification – Identification parade defects and possible tutoring – Proof of weapons – Irregular search and seizure and improper linkage of exhibits.
|
8 March 2004 |
|
|
3 March 2004 |
|
Late appeal application dismissed for inadequate reasons, procedural defect and no reasonable prospect of success.
Extension of time to appeal – s.25(1) Magistrates' Courts Act – requirements for granting extension; delay and laches. Grounds for delay – age, illiteracy and being misled by court staff – insufficient to justify inordinate delay. Procedure – omission to cite enabling statutory provision in chamber summons is fatal irregularity. Merits threshold – applicant must demonstrate reasonable prospect of success; concurrent findings of lower courts undermine such prospect.
|
1 March 2004 |