R v Mununga and Others (Criminal Review Case 220 of 1941) [1941] ZMHCNR 6 (31 December 1941)
The facts did not establish both suspicious character and suspicious manner as required by section 158(4) Penal Code; therefore, the convictions could not stand.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1941] ZMHCNR 6
- Parties
- Prosecution: R. v. Mununga and Others; Defendant: Six women (defendants)
- Court
- High Court of Northern Rhodesia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Criminal Review Case 220 of 1941
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Appellate/review
- Outcome
- Convictions quashed
- Legal Topics
- Rogue and Vagabond, Section 158(4) Penal Code, Suspicious Circumstances
- 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
R. v. Mununga and Others
Prosecution
Six women (defendants)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Appellate/review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the facts support a conviction under section 158(4) of the Penal Code for being rogues and vagabonds
Ratio Decidendi
The facts did not establish both suspicious character and suspicious manner as required by section 158(4) Penal Code; therefore, the convictions could not stand.
Court Disposition
Convictions quashed
Orders
- Fines to be refunded
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
120 V ol. II] R. v. MUNUNGA AND OTHERS. Crim inal R eview Cases Nos. 220-225 of 1941. Rogue and vagabond— section 158 (4) o f the Penal Code. The object o f this section is to deal with suspicious characters acting in a suspicious manner and the facts o f the case must show that both these elements are present otherwise a conviction should not be recorded. R obinson, A . C . J .: In these six cases the facts are all the same. On the night o f 3rd/4th August the six women charged were found in bed with male hospital patients in the venereal disease section o f the Mongu Native Hospital. They were none o f them registered patients and they had no right to be in the hospital precincts at the time. They were charged contra section 158 (4) Penal Code with being rogues and vagabonds in that they were found upon premises, to wit, the Native Hospital, in circumstances as to lead to the conclusion that they were there for a disorderly purpose. U nfortunately the rest o f the subsection does not at all fit the facts o f the case. It says “ every person found wandering in or upon or near any prem ises or in any road or highway, etc., at such tim e and, under such circum stances as to lead to the conclusion that such person is there for an illegal or disorderly pur pose ” . The whole essence o f the section is to deal with suspicions characters acting in a suspicious manner. A charge under that section does n ot cover the facts in the cases and it is w ith regret that I quash the convictions and order the fines to be refunded. Speaking generally I appreciate the Magistrate’s desire that sen tences o f imprisonment should be served in order to see if any o f the women had been infected b y venereal disease. I f that was so, there was no necessity at all to give the option o f a fine.