Damiel s/o Mugema v. R., Crim. App. 956-M-66; 23/3/67; Platt, J.

Damiel s/o Mugema v. R., Crim. App. 956-M-66; 23/3/67; Platt, J.

Accused were convicted of assaulting a police officer. At the close of the prosecution case, accused Daniel Mugema informed the court that he had expected to be represented by an advocate and requested that the court adjourn the trial to permit him to obtain counsel. Prior to the trial a letter had been written to the court stating that counsel had been briefed, but this letter had been lost. The request for adjournment was denied. The only indications in the record that the accused had been sentenced were unsigned and undated judgments and unsigned warrants of commitment; there was no record of any proceedings of any kind after the close of the defence case.

            Held: (1) If the accused delayed unreasonably, circumstances might warrant a refusal to grant an adjournment at the trial so that he could obtain counsel. However, in the present case the accused attempted prior to the trial to inform the court by letter that he would be represented. His failure to request counsel at the commencement of the trial is excusable because of his lack of knowledge of the procedure to be followed. Citing Jaffrali Abdulla Haji v. R., I.T.L.R. 299. (2) The failure of the record to disclose any sentencing proceedings and the fact that the judgments were undated and unsigned and the orders of commitment were unsigned constitute gross irregularity which should not be cured under section 346 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The convictions were quashed.