[1937] EACA 162

[1937] EACA 162

The Court of Appeal held that the Magistrate improperly called a witness after the close of the defence case, which was only permissible in exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court's order for a new trial was not justified merely because the Employment of Natives Ordinance was a special law; judicial discretion must be exercised according to legal principles, not sympathetic motives. Ordering a new trial would unfairly prejudice the accused by allowing the prosecution to rely on evidence previously found objectionable. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court's order constituted a 'decision' within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the discretion to order a...

Citation
[1937] EACA 162
Parties
Appellant: D. Newmark; Respondent: Rex
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1937
Case Number
Cr.A. 72/1934. .
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Kenya in Its Appellate Jurisdiction
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; order for new trial set aside; appellant acquitted
Judges
Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Webb, J
Legal Topics
Judicial Discretion, Calling of Evidence by Court, Special Legislation, Retrial Orders, Acquittal Procedure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Judicial Discretion Calling of Evidence by Court Special Legislation Retrial Orders Acquittal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. Newmark

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Kenya in Its Appellate Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate had power to call a witness after the close of the case for the defence.
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court was justified in ordering a new trial under the Employment of Natives Ordinance.
  3. 3 Whether the special nature of the Ordinance justified deviation from ordinary criminal procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Magistrate improperly called a witness after the close of the defence case, which was only permissible in exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court's order for a new trial was not justified merely because the Employment of Natives Ordinance was a special law; judicial discretion must be exercised according to legal principles, not sympathetic motives. Ordering a new trial would unfairly prejudice the accused by allowing the prosecution to rely on evidence previously found objectionable. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court's order constituted a 'decision' within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the discretion to order a...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed; order for new trial set aside; appellant acquitted

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The order of the Supreme Court directing a new trial is set aside.