Facts
The appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. The evidence was that, acting on information received, an inspector of police, with five other officers, all in plain clothes, went in his car to patrol a road and saw a car 150 yards in front of him move so as to block his way. Five Africans armed with stones descended and came towards his car when the officers emerged, the Africans withdrew but were arrested and stones were found in their car and the number plates were greased and smeared with sand. At the trial counsel for the appellants in cross-examination suggested to the inspector that he had fabricated the evidence. Later the prosecuting officer applied for leave to cross-examine the fifth appellant on his previous convictions and the magistrate ruled that the appellants had put their characters in issue and that the prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine the fifth appellant. Both the third and fifth appellants admitted previous convictions and the magistrate convicted all the appellants. On appeal the main grounds of appeal were that the magistrate had erred in admitting evidence of the bad character of the third and fifth appellants under s. 52 of the Evidence Ordinance and that counsel for the appellants was entitled to make imputations against the character of the inspector at the trial without the appellants being cross-examined on their previous criminal history because it was an integral part of the defence without which the appellants could not have put their case before the magistrate fairly and squarely.
The appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. The evidence was that, acting on information received, an inspector of police, with five other officers, all in plain clothes, went in his car to patrol a road and saw a car 150 yards in front of him move so as to block his way. Five Africans armed with stones descended and came towards his car when the officers emerged, the Africans withdrew but were arrested and stones were found in their car and the number plates were greased and smeared with sand. At the trial counsel for the appellants in cross-examination suggested to the inspector that he had fabricated the evidence. Later the prosecuting officer applied for leave to cross-examine the fifth appellant on his previous convictions and the magistrate ruled that the appellants had put their characters in issue and that the prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine the fifth appellant. Both the third and fifth appellants admitted previous convictions and the magistrate convicted all the appellants. On appeal the main grounds of appeal were that the magistrate had erred in admitting evidence of the bad character of the third and fifth appellants under s. 52 of the Evidence Ordinance and that counsel for the appellants was entitled to make imputations against the character of the inspector at the trial without the appellants being cross-examined on their previous criminal history because it was an integral part of the defence without which the appellants could not have put their case before the magistrate fairly and squarely.
Held – in suggesting to the inspector that he had planted stones in the appellants’ car and had obscured the number plates with grease and sand, counsel for the appellants went beyond what was necessary for the proper and fair presentation of his clients’ case before the court; accordingly the magistrate had properly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence of the bad character of the third and fifth appellants.
Appeals dismissed.
![TARLOK SINGH NAYAR & ANOTHER V. STERLING GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY [1966] 1 EA 144.](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O3EpVMWcoKw/WxY6-6I4--I/AAAAAAAAB2s/KzC0FqUQtkMdw7VzT6oOR_8vbZO6EJc-ACK4BGAYYCw/w680/nth.png)
Posts
0 Comments