-upholds magistrate’s decision
IT all happened in 1976 when the Guyana Court of Appeal held that a magistrate interpreted the law correctly and upturned the Full Court’s decision which had decided that the magistrate was wrong.
The Guyana Court of Appeal constituted by Justices of Appeal-Victor Crane, R. H. Luckhoo and Dhan Jhappan allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the magistrate.
It was the case of Detective Constable Henry Chester – the appellant versus Hardatt aka Ghande the respondent.
The respondent was charged with the offence of unlawfully assaulting Mari Muthoo so as to cause him actual bodily harm.
During the course of the trial the magistrate admitted in evidence the medical report of a registered medical practitioner issued within forty-eight hours of his examination of the injuries found on Mari Muthoo.
In order to rebut the story of Mari Muthoo that the assault on him was unprovoked, counsel for the respondent tendered in evidence a document from the same doctor, which purported to be a report made by that doctor and issued within 48 hours of his examination of injuries found on the respondent. Proceedings were never instituted against Mari Muthoo.
The magistrate ruled that the document was inadmissible as the injuries sustained by the respondent were not the subject of a prosecution of a criminal offence and thus not caught within the ambit of Section 43 (4) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 5:03. The magistrate therefore, excluded the contents of this report from his consideration and found the respondent guilty.
On appeal to the Full Court it was held that the document was within the ambit of Section 43 (4) and the appeal was allowed and the conviction and order set aside.
The State appealed the decision of the Full Court at the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held:
(1)That only a document purporting to be a post-mortem report of a duly registered medical practitioner within forty-eight hours of his examination of any injury or condition of a person, and which said injury or condition is the subject of a prosecution for a criminal offence, can be admitted in evidence under Section 43 (4) of the Evidence Act. Cap. 5:03, and therefore the ruling of the learned magistrate was correct.
(2)That there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity in the words used in Section 43 (4), which must therefore be given their ordinary natural meaning.
(3) That although the Court has the power to develop the common law in certain cases this case was not one which could not justify a judicial extension.
(4)That since the respondent’s injuries were not the subject of a prosecution for a criminal offence, the respondent’s medical was inadmissible, and accordingly, the judgment and order of the Full Court would be set aside and the decision of the magistrate restored.

Appeal allowed; decision of the magistrate restored
At the Appellate Court, G.H.R. Jackman, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions appeared for the appellant while Mr. K. A. Juman-Yassin, represented the respondent.
Delivering the judgment of the Appellate Court, Justice of Appeal R. H. Luckhoo said: “The only point which calls for consideration in this appeal is one of construction of the language used in Section 43 (4) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 5:03, with respect to the admissibility in evidence of a document purporting to be a report made by a duly registered medical practitioner.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly these: The respondent was charged with the offence of having on June 30, 1973 at Leonora, West Coast, Demerara, unlawfully assaulted Mari Muthoo so as to cause him actual bodily harm, contrary to Section 30 (a)of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, Cap. 8:02.
During the course of the trial the magistrate admitted in evidence the medical report of Dr. Sahai, a registered medical practitioner, issued by him within 48 hours of his examination of the injuries found on Mari Muthoo.
During cross-examination of Police Sergeant Primo, a witness for the prosecution, counsel for the respondent caused to be tendered in evidence through that witness a document, also uplifted by the police from the same doctor, which purported to be a report made by that doctor and issued within 48 hours of his examination of injuries found on the respondent.
The objective of the defence was to show that far from the story of Mari Muthoo of an unprovoked assault on him being true, it was Mari Muthoo and his family who had unlawfully assaulted the respondent.
Neither the police nor the respondent instituted proceedings against Mari Muthoo for any assault alleged to have been committed by him on the respondent .This document tendered under cross-examination was admitted by the magistrate in evidence and marked as Ex. ‘B.’
The respondent was found guilty, and in his reasons for decision the magistrate said with respect to this latter medical report, Ex. ’B’ that it was inadmissible as the injuries sustained by the respondent were not
the subject of a prosecution for a criminal offence and thus the document was not caught within the ambit of
the provisions of Section 43 (4) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 5:03.
“We regret we have to differ from the learned judges of the Full Court in their construction of the section
under review.
“The appeal is allowed. The judgment and the order of the Full Court are set aside and the decision and the
order of the conviction made by the learned magistrate are restored, save that we propose to set aside the
penalty imposed and to substitute a reprimand and discharge in its place,” the Court of Appeal declared.