R v William Mulumbu (Criminal Review Case 283 of 1939) [1939] ZMHCNR 15 (31 December 1939)
The correct method of charging for storebreaking and theft under section 273(1) of the Penal Code is to charge under that section alone, without reference to section 243, and to set out the details of the felony in the particulars.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1939] ZMHCNR 15
- Parties
- Prosecution: Republic; Accused: William Mulumbu
- Court
- High Court of Northern Rhodesia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Criminal Review Case 283 of 1939
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Review of Charge Formulation
- Outcome
- Charge formulation clarified
- Legal Topics
- Storebreaking, Theft, Charge Formulation, Penal Code Interpretation
- 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
Republic
Prosecution
William Mulumbu
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Review of Charge Formulation
Legal Issues
- 1 What is the correct method of charging under section 273(1) of the Penal Code for storebreaking and theft?
Ratio Decidendi
The correct method of charging for storebreaking and theft under section 273(1) of the Penal Code is to charge under that section alone, without reference to section 243, and to set out the details of the felony in the particulars.
Court Disposition
Charge formulation clarified
Orders
- Charges should be laid under section 273(1) only, with particulars specifying the felony alleged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
[Vol. II R . v. W ILLIAM MULUMBU. Crim inal R eview Case No. 283 of 1939. Section 273 (1) Penal Code—storebreaking and theft—correct method o f charging. As it is necessary to prove that a felony was committed as well as that there was a breaking and entering to obtain a conviction under this subsection there should be no reference to section 243 o f the Penal Code in the statement o f the offence but the details o f the felony alleged should be set out in the particulars. T h om son , A . J .: The accused in this case was charged with store breaking and theft in contravention o f sections 273 (1) and 243 o f the Penal Code. . . . The charge, however, should have been laid in con travention o f section 273 (1) only. Under that section to constitute an offence it is necessary to establish the commission o f a felony in addition to a breaking and entering and it is therefore unnecessary and improper to im port into the charge any allegations o f a contravention o f section 243.