R v Saule and Others (CRI/R 353 of 89) [1989] LSCA 80 (7 July 1989)
The absence of enquiry as to age, lack of representation for child accused, and equivocal pleas rendered the trial and sentence a nullity.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1989] LSCA 80
- Parties
- Prosecution: Rex; Accused: Saule Saule and 11 others
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Lesotho
- Case Number
- CRI/R 353 of 89
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Order on Appeal/revision
- Outcome
- trial and sentence declared a nullity; retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Age of Accused, Representation of Accused, Equivocal Plea, Nullity of Trial, Minimum Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Prosecution
Saule Saule and 11 others
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Order on Appeal/revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was proper enquiry as to the age of the accused
- 2 Whether the accused were properly represented
- 3 Whether the pleas of guilty were unequivocal
Ratio Decidendi
The absence of enquiry as to age, lack of representation for child accused, and equivocal pleas rendered the trial and sentence a nullity.
Court Disposition
trial and sentence declared a nullity; retrial ordered
Orders
- All accused to be retried before another magistrate
- Director of Public Prosecutions to decide on the charge sheet and whether to bring the accused before the Subordinate Court again
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CRI/R/353/89 IN T HE H IG H CO U R T OF L E S O T HO In the matter of R EX v SAULE SAULE AND 11 OTHERS O R D ER Delivered by the Honourable Chief Justice Mr Justice B. P. Cullinan on the 7th day of July, 1989 There was no enquiry as to age whatever. Even the accused whose age is recorded at 19 or 20 years, could be the subject of such enquiry, particularly where a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment is involved. None of the accused were represented. In particular none of the child-accused were represented by their parents or guardians. The facts revealed do not necessarily disclose that the accused acted in concert - it cannot have been alleged that all 12 separately broke and entered. The statement of facts does not disclose which accused was found in possession of what property. /The inference ... - 2- The inference of receiving could, on the facts, have been drawn. The Court is not entitled to draw the least favourable inference. In all the circumstances the pleas of guilty were equivocal and the trial a nullity. So of course was the sentence of 5 years imprisonment when applied to any child accused. I order that all accused be retried before another magistrate. A3 to the charge sheet, I leave that to the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions - and also the question as to whether he wishes to bring the accused before the Subordinate Court again. (Sgd ) B. P. CULLINAN B. P. CULLINAN (CHIEF JUSTICE)