Remitted to magistrate for rehearing

IN August 1959, the Full Court comprising Chief Justice Holder and Justice J. Luckhoo found that the indictable offences set for a joint trial of two persons – Harding and Coddette – to be tried summarily, later found that the trial by the magistrate was a nullity.

Section 60 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance , Cap. 15 [BG.], empowers a magistrate with the consent of the accused, to deal summarily with an indictable offence which is specified in the First Schedule to the Ordinance, if certain conditions are fulfilled. The offence of accessory after the fact, to an offence, is not one of the offences specified in the schedule.

The appellants, Harding, and one, Coddette were charged indictably on one information, Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance , Cap. 10 [B.G], which is one of the offences specified in the schedule to the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance, Cap. 15 [B.G.], and C. with the offence of accessory after the fact to the offence with which H. was charged.
On the application of the prosecutor, under the provisions of s.60f of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance, Cap. 15 [B.G.], that both charges be dealt with by the magistrate summarily, both the appellant and C. agreeing thereto, after having being informed of their right to trial by jury, the magistrate proceeded to hear and determine the charges together summarily.

‘C’. was found not guilty on the charge laid and `H’. was found guilty of the charge laid against him.
The appellant appealed against his conviction.
Held:

(i) it was not competent for the prosecutor to apply for the offence of accessory after the fact to be dealt with summarily, and not competent for `C’ to elect to be tried summarily nor for the magistrate to deal summarily with the offence as charged against `C’;

(ii) although the charge against ‘C’ was dismissed, the joint trial of the appellant and `C’ was a nullity.
No cases referred to
Appeal allowed
Appeal from conviction by a magistrate
J.O.F. Haynes for the Appellant
G.L.B. Persaud, Senior Crown Counsel for the Respondent.
Justice Frank Holder in delivering the judgment of the court said: The appellant Harding was charged indictably on an information of embezzlement by public officer, contrary to s.101 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance. Cap. 10 [BG].
One Randolph Coddette was charged indictably on the same information as accessory after the fact to the same offence.

At the hearing of the charges before the magistrate of the Courantyne Judicial District, the magistrate informed both the appellant and Coddette of their right to be tried by a jury and they both elected to be tried summarily.
The magistrate thereupon proceeded to hear the charges summarily.
Both accused testified on oath and were cross-examined.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate convicted the appellant on the charge as laid, and dismissed the charge of accessory after the fact to the offence of embezzlement by public officer laid against Coddette.
Judge Luckhoo concluded:
The procedure adopted by the magistrate in dealing with the offence charged against Coddette was wholly irregular.

In our opinion the joint trial of both offences was a nullity for the reason that it was not competent for the offence charged against Coddette to be tried summarily.
The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence against the appellant must be set aside.
The matter remitted to the magistrate of the Courantyne Judicial District to be re-heard and determined. Solicitor: Crown Solicitor (for the respondent)