r vs adam rashid jalal khan 2021 tzhc 9536 2 december 2021

r vs adam rashid jalal khan 2021 tzhc 9536 2 december 2021

The cautioned statement is inadmissible because it fails to indicate the time the caution was given and does not set out the terms in which the caution was given, both of which are mandatory requirements under section 57(2)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Additionally, the statement was recorded outside the legally prescribed time frame without an extension, rendering the interview and resulting statement illegal and ineffectual.

Citation
r vs adam rashid jalal khan 2021 tzhc 9536 2 december 2021
Parties
Prosecution: Republic; Accused: Adam Rashid Jalal Khan
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Session Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence (cautioned Statement)
Outcome
Objection upheld; cautioned statement ruled inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confession, Cautioned Statement Requirements, Police Procedure, Time Limits for Police Interviews
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Confession Cautioned Statement Requirements Police Procedure Time Limits for Police Interviews

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Prosecution

Adam Rashid Jalal Khan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Session Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence (cautioned Statement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cautioned statement is admissible in evidence given alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements
  2. 2 Whether the statement was recorded within the legally prescribed time frame
  3. 3 Whether the accused was properly cautioned as required by law

Ratio Decidendi

The cautioned statement is inadmissible because it fails to indicate the time the caution was given and does not set out the terms in which the caution was given, both of which are mandatory requirements under section 57(2)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Additionally, the statement was recorded outside the legally prescribed time frame without an extension, rendering the interview and resulting statement illegal and ineffectual.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; cautioned statement ruled inadmissible.

Orders

  • The alleged cautioned statement is disqualified from being admitted in evidence.