R. v. Odero s/o Obila, Crim. Sass. 140-M-68, 7/12/68, Seaton J.
The accused was brought for trial on information that he had, knowing the contents thereof, indirectly caused one Paulo Ojiwa to receive a letter threatening to kill Johana Otiano, the accused’s uncle, c/s 214, Penal Code. At the Preliminary Inquiry the prosecutor asserted that the accused was aged 16 years but the accused stated that he was born on 24th September, 1952. The Court thereupon noted in the record; “Accused is therefore a juvenile and his case will be heard in camera”. The proceedings then continued – Presumably in camera – but according to the routine laid down in Part V11 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the committal of accused persons for trial to the High Court.
Held: (1) “The learned District Magistrate quite properly decided that as the accused was a juvenile, his case should be heard “in camera”, if by that expression on may under-stand that the court thereafter sat in a different building or room from that in which the ordinary sitting of the court were held ……. However, the learned District Magistrate appears to have over locked the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 3 and
section 6 of the Ordinance. Section 3(2) provides that if, in the course of any proceedings in a District Court, it appears that the person charged or the person to whom the proceedings relate is under 16 years of age, the court shall continue sitting as a juvenile court for the purposes of the Ordinance. Then section 6 provides that when a young person is brought before a juvenile court for any offence other than homicide the case shall be finally disposed of in such court. I have not been able to find any case in which these two sections have been the subject of interpretation and I must confess that I do not find their meaning to be crystal clear. It seems to me however that their combined effect is to provide immunity to persons under 16 years of age (except on charges of homicide) from criminal prosecution in the High Court. The proceedings before the District Court should have been dealt with as if jurisdiction to dispose of an offence under section 214 of the Penal Code had been conferred on that Court ….. By the time this case came on for trial in this court, the accused had already celebrated his 16th birthday. I would agree with the reasoning in the case of R. v. Fitt (1919) 2 Ir. R. 35, cited in Archbold, 28th ed. At
(2) Accused was convicted on his own plea.
(3) “The sending of this letter appears to have been provoked by the accused’s own fear that his uncle was intending to lie in waif to beat him with a club. I am satisfied the accused had no intention to carry out his threats. His action was somewhat like that of the dog which barks because it is afraid of the intruder. Nevertheless, it was a bad action and particularly unworthy of the respect which the accused should normally have towards his uncle; But I believe the accused has shown genuine remorse for his regard to the relationship between the complainant and the accused, the fact that the accused is so young and his present attitude of remorse, I do not believe it would be expedient to inflict punishment on him. Nor would I consider a probation order appropriate ….. Accordingly, I order the accused to be discharged subject to the condition that he commits no offence during the next twelve months from this date”.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.