N

IN· '11:..:E CO$~ or 4PF'JML or '1'.tul~\HI4 AT m~r:YA : ~ , ~ i ~ ~ { Z A . ~ ~ ~ - ' , I , J : L A , J..'-~•• 5 ~nx.: . ':L WPEAL KO. 73~or· 1993 BETllEEN !l""'~ DI?..::'.C::!OJ. O"JI' P',.:'"BLIC PliO~ECL--:'ION:3 • • • ,,A.F'P'JL!,J..fT .tU~D ABDUL ISJ::UL. • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~POl1Dr:NT {Apper:l f;.~ the :aevision of tJ;e Tiigh Court of TanZclJlia B'1i NbD:>'a) q~ohome 1 J,) dated ·1:ie ·24-tl?, dq of ~tober, 1991 in _sirimwal R~i§i~ No, 22 -•f 1 92t ThiG ~ an appeal by the Director ~!- Public Prosecution-a -,.. (~.) a ~ t a revision oro.er of the Zi.GJi',~ourt {f{chome, J.). The ~pan.dent was conVicted by the District court of . threat~g Vioienoe cei1J.;rary te section 89 (2) (a) of the. Fenal , , ·Code and sentenced to 4 ruonths' imprisonment. Immediately after . his conviction and sentence, !llr~ . Ka;yange, his advooate, p .gave notice of appeal~ applied for c~py of prooeedillgS and ......... - :~eni.ent, a.nd in l'eapcnse therete the Cmu-t. orderedr- "Proo~ s.i'ld judgement ·to be typed: and supplied te J:::r. Kayangei, _'Cmm.sel . __ ~ ac.cu.aetL imuiedietel-y11 • ;§itting in revision on ·i;he following day which was a Satur~~ _-th~ ~ , :tea~ed ~ $a.Shed the conViotion and eet ''aeide th~ sentenrie •.. *· ;:i.:_;.~ . . ~-' . Th~ l.earned judGe set out the ba.cltgr9und to, and the ~;~~r->_~ ·.·. .. .. . . .'•~/~.: . . ._ : :~, n .. Tif, .·;::,;,;-· t~~~~-i~n for to.,:;,action :h~ took. Ile said th~~~n Fri<iw- t.:i'e:_·\~} -~~-~·F:;:;:~;../--. ~ ... , . . .... .· ·,~-,:-{. ~-;~--><~~ ~:,~~~_:~~~~~~:!Ji~. ~t,r.to:t:..e~t ;JritJ,!f>~...._&!H....,..~•--.,.. · _•...,. .( 2 ,v• . . r ,,/ ,-·, 'was ~iJ:lg threatened the.-~ he would be imp:riscmed witlJ.out an option for a -fine. m1ereupon -~:1c juc:ge adviri ·id him to w:-i t for the jwlgement which was clue fc:: dc;li·.- ,:r~·- that s~e J'riday, and should the threat materia:.izc -~::c.1 :.e c,mld appeal or apply for revision. oomplained to ·~he jud.::;e t:.at tlle reepondent had i.1 fact been eentenoed ·to 4 mon-~!is 1 im;:;:isonment w:i.th~ut- au option of a: fine. J1J there.would be no j\.1de:u at tlle station for ruo~e than a week aartuig on· Sunday, tl:.e judge said he had to ooill up the file for inspection that Sati:iv~-. :is inspeotion l'eVtaled gross misoa.rriage "l'!l.e ;;_:.:.ole o::ercise in t:,.is case stows a trave~si·~:." of j~ ":i-:,e al1d I ~ind ~~~at the acc-.:sec:;, 1~i::.l E..·..-.:ffer unneoescaril:,r if this oaoo uaits for the normal / appeal ~=oocases"• oensiated o1.· t:::.e c::nc;e ixJi;.ig grossly clefeot~ve resul t:i.;:Jg in the eviden•e not disclosbg ·Le .:i:ffence cl.arged. It also consisted of ,,,/ imposing a prison se:1tc;1ce wi tllout a fine op'.:ion ~n ·i.he ,l.'eSpondent~ an old: tDaD aged abo-,.1.t 60 years n.1:l a first of'fe:.ider on the pretext that he was wealthy. The DPP filed. four grou..::l.s ot 'appeal wlliob wero $t'B\led. befoN us 'tu M:rs. Makun½ lear,.:..ecl Seuior S'~ate Attor11ey. ~e respondent appeal in effect oritic:.6c!: t!. . e ·lea.::-i1ed judge ~o::' ao-~ing _ . .011 nOD-Ciste11t Jl:-OVisio:1 o:.:· -~:.:e ::.·:1-1 whe:.l ho qu,?G:.:..ed t::..e convictiou entered~ the Distrid Cou::"t. This criticism is ul:.olly justified. Tb.e etffence of threate.1bg viole~1ce, as it ot-cre:.t:.y stands, is _ereated under 5ec·~io11 :,9 (2) (:.) o-: ·:.he ?e:.al Cou.e ar; u~s amentled ... • . /~/-,.-· ' . .' . "Any person ~Lo, ... wit:l i;.1'.;;;:1t -~o.J::c·';i.:::i2.,;i"!;e or 8i'lilOY an;y perso!:, -~; x::: ·::0-:.Ls --~0 inju:re, aszaul t, st..cot , -~ -:,;; '._:L!.l ~:•.:;r ,..::~rson or "!;o b-.U'u, ~r;,:~ . . dest:.:-o: c,r :..e,r.: :_;(• 6.Ll:· ;_)!'O)?vr-.y; . or" ""' aF'.~•., . 1.r""' ... ~- ~' · ~e. information be::o:co -;;: ..-e ::'Jie"!;riot Court ·.;::e ;:cs:,ondent tr~ '!<" . . 111agis-trate in l:.is jucigeD0.~-t ~o::-reotly re.p:>:oc..·..1ced -:;::e 1:n·r as set · ~ pr.ived.- · In quas?).L1g '.;:ie conviotion, however, tlie learned judge> for :,,eas~s -~~~-~~-no'.; at all ap_parent....Pelied. on the :ve:psion of Seo.Uon 89 (2) (a) of -~;.;.e ?enal Code which was a.mended; 1n 1980 am, which then d1d cciltaia as t.Lll 4-ngredient the threat to k1ll. We say tt.e judge did so ::or reasons ;.hich are :,iot a:_:,::_:iarent because the amendment wh:.o!: m:s si'::eoted over_ 12 years ago is now contained t,n the copies o:? t:.ie ?c,K: Coci.e ;;.::.io~ are ·c-:.~rcat]J,' in use a:ud ;-rh.i~- the ·1earned judge shot.tlc:.. be using. i.:ot .only t::iat. -.:_n,ie current· version of the law .was set out ill the verJ judgement which the learned judg~ was revisi.ig, but he did no·~ ::.-efer to t.:.at version _to say why tte maeistra·te Hae wrong ·in appl~ring i'.; and·wcy t..e ( ~ jui: was justified '~o apply -:;~e one he did.. Be ttat as i•~ m~• the :.1et result is, and we so fi:..1d, t£..at tlle lea:.:-iled judge quashW the respondent's _convio•i:iio;1 on a patently wrong grow.d that Section 89 (2) (a) of the Fe~.2,l .;oC:.e un::.er ,wti.cb._:the respoudent ~-ct.urged_ did not inQlude t~e ingr0dient of a meat to ~ill. Iu the seconC:.. g-,:-ouad i:1e DP.F oomplaina that t:.:.~. leari-,ed. ju~e erred in lloldi:u~ ·Lat tile partioulars of t:ie offence did not disolcse the offa1oe :::~a:ri3"d. T'uia is al:rea.d;:· covered b;r what has been said a·.;ove. :'or, -t.au th,: l.:Ja:.:::e~ judge referred to, > and applied the Cl\ll're.1t versiou of section ·C; (2) (a) of the Pellal Code which has as an il\,"Ted.ie..-.t t~e ...ire£'t to .t:i::.1, he uould have ... • Gr~ three ori"!iicea ~a lee.med. judge f.o,, ~ - J S , t ~ tbt l!:r. l!bise had abc.ioa·~ed his .<l.uties as a Stat9 Attorney when h• l.;;:sed,a o~rtain :':r. 1:0:iamed Zussein, apri,r.i.l;e iudividual, . ts .-. . loot; fer an advooPto _J.;o ascist lii:m. :.this g r ~ 'lfOcld appeaiJ to· .. ,e relevaut to oOllSio.~a'~ion ·of the soundness or o·l;herwise. o£ h!'9 NS_pc,udent' G· 00:!viotion~ . ru-1; beariug in mind the OOUl'&e which. ~ p.-opoae to tal::e in t!lia matter,. we find it app~priate to sq ,thing about it. The fourth grOUtid says tl:.ats- ' 'I'he lea.r,1ed .3.gh Court ~ ·erred when 11 he ~eded to write revisio.•c.l order a:lte:r coi1sul·;.;.tions w1th t:le rellloti-v&a et .a Qonvio·~, ·,: e roapond.ent, at~or ofi'ioe ltou.:c,.. ~,: .0~1 -thGH wco n notio"3 of appe~l 1:t• i,c.voor.'.:e :!or the rcs:xmd.er.t 11 •. 3il;.oe t!le respo:.ldant_ \., "8. repreeente.d by- Cour,~cl, the learned. judge sl...ould :iave ~tortained. . ... the complaint throug:i·tae respondent's Counsel and not througb.·~e ' i-•~l)Olldent'·e relatives, unless of oourse, i'ii oan. be said that the . , lea-rned judge did llOt l.:ndlf' that ~e re:::pondent ·uas represented a:f; ' ). _the -trial. On reoeiving t~e oase file from the trial Court t4e learned judge' no d-ou.bt became ama.:o that t:ie respondent had cowwel who . had in faot acted ver-.1 promptly, after tne convtotion ~s ente:i:ed., for-oopy f>f tt~ reoord.. ------ by giving notice of ai;,pod a,.d applying Nontheless~ tb.e learned juc'.ge brus~od aei~e t:'.:.o roi. ot-oowu•~ . and,. pr~&eded. the 1;:i-s,- 1..o c;.id, Mc. on i,. Da·)Jrday whioh is a non- work:izig ~ ' as if to SE.;" -'.i:.::,:t he fe:!.t he oot:1~ c!:.ampion the respondent's rights better t:'.:.an t::.e retained ooi.msol. 1:e thililc \;bat such displq of overzealousness .m~• lea.a. to u;id.;si.ra:~l.e 1 • •,' .., .t~, ,.,.,.,,...~ · ·,· ,..,. -:;.ie .. ·. And, final...,, ' l ~arr.:-~'. .r.i:..:;e . . ' •• o".; .-;1··10 : ••, t·:..oe t o . t'" i.:.c.. .-e···,• .. ·(., -.~.,_- 1 (_·- ... . '... \ . . ~ .,. . ,l·~~:J 't•t: I • ", ' ·C , l ,, i • .. ~ \-:r DPP .-,: 'he ~ed. to be ?le.:-.~•d on -;,~<' ;ropcc.;c! :-ev:i.oion,• ••1t~~,::'-}~'--t.: ' 't : ' • J ~ • .. • ,, .. : ; ' '._- ·. ~ ~ • of ij~otion '3'74_.of the ·cr~:Llal :?ro,.ed.ure ~t the judge,' ·,:· 0, ,, ' ' - f. ' ... -.::,,/; : . tii,, •. Jli&:~.. ljJi;~ thifi!i··9fl~ i~ AH>t.-.o.~ligect t() Aea.r 1t.:.e-.partier,. ,~ '. ::l?;r: :,~ _: ·-;~~~n; t t -11 °11ft. t~· h~ owa. d~so~etio~ ~(•,, : 1 • ' • • • • ~t; the p~~tioe ~- · · _•,·~1 '• • ,/ ~11. I • ' ~ ~;,- i,'f :l ;:,_,.. the ~ Court has beeu• to µoti:fy"' ~e :OPP U' •he wis!lec t• 'be h~~ 'i,. : :~, --: ,,..,,·r .,..'". • ,#::::•J., . i,. . .en tho J'l'OPOH'1 revision. Yet i:l t,.:.is case no.~lanation was /, :f'.: • ,, .....,, • ....-'°'"' ·~ /t,·~ :. · · givon.-am\ nene h ap~ont, for iapa.rti:.~ trom t~t praotie>e~ ~.. ~ ,· himHU' tf thQ aaeis·~ar1ce of '.::ounsel, .re .::eel nertain that the , . -~lundo: . . or~er.i-or which- ue.s committed -W-OWQ. .ea.oil;:, hc.ve been avoid.ed.., ~-.' . . . - . . ' -.- "":•',-A lft ~.oul.4 acoo:dillgl;· ()!:'".~Oize the "eed ~o, ad.hara ae far U .</ -:. :.Jf; : /..,,, .. ~ .J_ ~-~ 1lf"j't,:;.. /.~-, -.,1 ... ~s--~ ... ,! ... • ..,~ i ~ •• ~ •·· "" . 1 ·~ .,_ ... ', ., ~ . ; cenolusion, . ~"-t we are sa.',iei'ied t!:at the learned. judge in ·:: ........ .:rP~ ' ~ ~ -4~&1~>. ~th thi~ r~~i~ i'cil~~ t~ a;p{;. the ,;~l~t 1, ., - . . ::~~1~£l· .-.. ., ' ' ' ~ ·· • 1 t • •" •• •, ',, •• 0 1 .._ "• -~ tP ~~ ~er :w;¼?l?- the r1a~p~ndeat -vras ?~~ad, with "the i-esult · >, & , I" • I ,• • ,••, • ' • • ~ ~ \,• I •, 1 , '.~~J< ·,1 -•~ ~ ... ~t be ~11(~ ~~ :b!.le :re!l_pondent'.11' oonv:totio_n~ )r_e arf ·-, .-.:./ : }}J ~ ............ V"' '•.;·,:}' t't" _t••.• 1 t. '· , • , ~ , . • 1 •• • -~·~ ! ~')c ,,~.,_..,,:'"1~r-:~ 1 ~ ~~,)~ ,·~eqUal.3¥ ~ ~. i,a1;1sfted. ... •• • t::"..at. ill so i'a:ili.;;iCJ- 1••:tio a.p~ . ' 'j;he·.rel~t: ,--. , · · ". ~:"'" '. .. ..... , ..v. , . • +i {~/ ~r:;_;..,u,;_ ~~ , ,t_.. \,Jl, .... ....,;,. ..:., . •,' ' .. ,f T • ..., ~ ~ ,, ~ovisione of the i.::.~,,' ~-~ oannot 'ba said: to havo dealt witr. the • ", ·.:~. ·:. ~··.. ,) (. Jllel'ita or de1:1ert ts c"' -~::a respo:.lden~' s oonviotion. . .. .. we~aet aside t!,e :3.c;:1 C ~ ore.er 1n 'revision mid ·restore t!le -:.C-~, ..... (lonse~entJy .- ~~ ~ttJ ~-.. r •• • ,.::. . '< •~ .• :, .. ' judgement of the Dis~ric~ Court, wit;:: a·c:.ireo•:;ion'·:;;iq.t ailY party'.' J ·, .f.. ~; ·.i ,,n:-,':""' -... ~- -- 1rh'o uas Sfgr~eved by -~:-..at judgement is a'.; li".J:.ir·t• to tal..:e t!le . . ______ ...,..,._ "/,. .it.•·· ·, •••••/6