R v Manyeli (C of A (CRI) 14 of 2007) [2008] LSCA 29 (17 October 2008)

R v Manyeli (C of A (CRI) 14 of 2007) [2008] LSCA 29 (17 October 2008)

There were no reasonable grounds for apprehension of bias as the alleged contempt was directed at specific judges, not the institution, and the presumption of impartiality applied. At the close of the Crown case, there was circumstantial evidence on which a reasonable court might convict, and the trial court erred in granting discharge.

Citation
[2008] LSCA 29
Parties
Appellant: Rex; Respondent: Anthony Clovis Manyeli
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
17 October 2008
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 14 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Acquittal at Close of Crown Case
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Test for Recusal, Test for Discharge at Close of Prosecution Case, Contemptuous Remarks Against Judiciary
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Contempt of Court Judicial Recusal Test for Recusal Test for Discharge at Close of Prosecution Case Contemptuous Remarks Against Judiciary

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Appellant

Anthony Clovis Manyeli

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Acquittal at Close of Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judges of the Court of Appeal should recuse themselves for reasonable suspicion of bias
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence on which a reasonable court might convict the accused of contempt of court at the close of the Crown case

Ratio Decidendi

There were no reasonable grounds for apprehension of bias as the alleged contempt was directed at specific judges, not the institution, and the presumption of impartiality applied. At the close of the Crown case, there was circumstantial evidence on which a reasonable court might convict, and the trial court erred in granting discharge.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order granting discharge and acquittal is set aside and replaced with an order refusing discharge.