Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Alex s/o Andrea v. R., Crim. App. 494, 495-D-67, -/8/67, Hamlyn J.



Alex s/o Andrea v. R., Crim. App. 494, 495-D-67, -/8/67, Hamlyn J.

Accused were convicted of burglary and stealing. The prosecution was unable to obtain transport for one of its witnesses in time for him to appear during the prosecution case. As a result, he was called as a court witness by the magistrate after the close of the defence case. The appeals were dismissed because any errors committed were not prejudicial.

            The Court stated, obiter: (1) A court witness should be called only in the most exceptional circumstances after the close of the defence case in rebuttal of defence testimony. (2) An opportunity must be given to an accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination after any amendment of the charge. (3) Where an accused who is unrepresented cross-examines a prosecution witness and asks questions the answers to which would be prejudicial to him, the magistrate should caution the accused. The question should be entered in the record only if the accused persists in asking the question after such a caution.

 

Post a Comment

0 Comments