R v Kasonde (Criminal Review Case 91 of 1938) [1938] ZMHCNR 4 (31 December 1938)
Although the Magistrate failed to charge the accused and record his plea when dealing with the amended charge of manslaughter summarily, this omission was not vital in the circumstances and did not occasion a failure of justice.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1938] ZMHCNR 4
- Parties
- Prosecution: Rex; Accused: Kasonde
- Court
- High Court of Northern Rhodesia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Criminal Review Case 91 of 1938
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Omission to take plea not fatal; no failure of justice found.
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Inquiry, Manslaughter, Summary Trial, Plea 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
Rex
Prosecution
Kasonde
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a plea must be taken when a Subordinate Court decides to deal with a reduced charge of manslaughter summarily after a preliminary inquiry for murder.
- 2 Whether omission to take a plea in such circumstances constitutes a failure of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the Magistrate failed to charge the accused and record his plea when dealing with the amended charge of manslaughter summarily, this omission was not vital in the circumstances and did not occasion a failure of justice.
Court Disposition
Omission to take plea not fatal; no failure of justice found.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
14 Vol. II] R. v. KASONDE. Criminal R e v ie w Case N o. 91 of 1938. Preliminary inquiry— murder— charge reduced during course o f proceedings to manslaughter— charge dealt with by Subordinate Court summarily— plea should be taken before such summary adjudication. The judgm ent in this case draws attention to the need to charge the accused and to record his plea where a Subordinate Court having held a prelim inary inquiry decides to exercise its powers under section 210 o f the Criminal Procedure Code and to deal with the charge sum m arily. I t w ill be noticed that section 210 provides that the Subordinate Court m ay, in certain circum stances and subject to the provisions o f Part V I o f the Criminal Procedure Code, hear and finally determine the m atter sum m arily; P art V I requires the sub stance o f the charge to be stated to the accused person b y the Court and for the accused person to be called upon to plead thereto (Criminal Procedure Code, 2, 187). A Subordinate Court has no longer ju risdiction to deal sum m arily with a case o f manslaughter. See also R . v. Kafungwa, p. 60 post. F ra n cis, C . J .: There is a difference between this case and Rex v. Changala and Two Others, Broken H ill. In this case, although the prelim inary inquiry com m enced on the basis o f a charge o f murder, there was during the course o f the proceedings an am endm ent o f the charge to one o f manslaughter, upon which basis the accused entered into his defence. D irectly the M agistrate decides to deal w ith a case summarily, he should charge the accused and record his plea. I t does not appear to have been done in this case— but the om ission, in m y view in the cir cumstances o f this case, is n ot vital, and does n o t occasion a failure of justice. A copy o f the Order in R ex v. Changala1 should be sent to the Magis trate. 1 Reported at p.30 post.