Alfred Chamanga v The People (Appeal No. 35 of 1970) [1970] ZMHC 2 (17 June 1970)
The absence of any summing up on the evidence by the Judge Advocate constituted a mistrial, and the court could not be satisfied that a properly directed court martial would have reached the same conclusion.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1970] ZMHC 2
- Parties
- Appellant: Alfred Chamanga; Respondent: The People
- Court
- High Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal No. 35 of 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; accused acquitted
- Legal Topics
- Summing Up by Judge Advocate, Mistrial, Court Martial Procedure
- 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
Alfred Chamanga
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Judge Advocate's summing up on the evidence was adequate as required by the Defence Force (Procedure) Rules, r. 63
- 2 Whether the inadequacy of the summing up rendered the proceedings a mistrial
Ratio Decidendi
The absence of any summing up on the evidence by the Judge Advocate constituted a mistrial, and the court could not be satisfied that a properly directed court martial would have reached the same conclusion.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; accused acquitted
Orders
- accused acquitted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ALFRED CHAMANGA v THE PEOPLE (1970) ZR 18 (HC) I HIGH COURT 5 DOYLE CJ, PICKETT JA AND GARDNER J 17TH JUNE 1970 Appeal No. 35 of 1970 Flynote Criminal law and procedure - Summing up by Judge Advocate - Inadequate Summing up - Effect on conviction - Defence Force (Procedure) Rules, 10 r. 63. ■ Headnote The facts are given in the judgment. Held: (i) There was no adequate summing up on the evidence by the Judge Advocate as required by the Act and the proceedings 15 were a mistrial. ■ Legislation referred to: Defence Force (Procedure) Rules, Cap. 131, r. 63. [] Editorial Note: The Act referred to in the judgment is the Defence Force Act, Cap. 131 and the required provision is under the Defence 20 Force (Procedure) Rules, r. 63 ■ Judgment Doyle CJ: delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted at a court martial of two offences. He appeals to this court on the ground mainly that there was no adequate summing up by the Judge Advocate. There is not the slightest doubt that 25 this is true and the State does not support the ■ conviction. The learned Judge Advocate is required by the Act to sum up on the evidence. There is not one word in his summing up about this evidence. There is no doubt that the issues were not entirely uncomplicated and there was a great deal of conflicting evidence. Indeed even now one might find some 30 difficulty in deciding which tyre the appellant was convicted of stealing. There is no doubt that there has been a mistrial and the only question is whether this court could exercise the proviso in relation to one or other of the convictions. We have been through the record and we are quite satisfied that it is impossible for this court to say that, had the court 35 martial been properly directed, they must have come to the same conclusion. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the accused is acquitted. Appeal allowed ■ ■