Share
The Queen v Economides (Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1956) [1956] EACA 32 (1 January 1956)
- Citation
- [1956] EACA 32
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- O'Connor CJ, Rudd J
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1956
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- O'Connor CJ, Rudd J
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1956
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that while the magistrate's initial failure to provide reasons for dismissing the charge was an error, this was remedied when the magistrate subsequently furnished reasons upon the court's direction. The court emphasized that a magistrate must not substitute a view of the locus in quo for evidence and must ensure that any adverse findings arising from such a view are put to the relevant witness for response. However, given the conflicting prosecution evidence and the magistrate's doubt at the close of the Crown case, the court could not conclude that the magistrate was wrong in holding there was no case to answer. The appeal was therefore dismissed, but the court reiterated the procedural safeguards required when a view of the locus in quo is conducted.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The magistrate's decision to dismiss the charge is upheld.
02
Material facts
Parties
The Queen
Appellant Counsel: Davies, Crown CounselJ. Economides
Respondent Counsel: Sirley03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Case Stated
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a magistrate is required to state reasons when dismissing a charge under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 02
Whether a magistrate may rely on a view of the locus in quo as a substitute for evidence.
- 03
Whether failure to recall a witness after a view of the locus in quo affects the fairness of proceedings.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the magistrate erred in law by dismissing the charge without providing reasons, especially given the conflicting prosecution evidence and the magistrate's reliance on a view of the scene. The appellant contended that the absence of reasons undermined the ability to assess the correctness of the decision and that the magistrate improperly substituted his own observations for sworn testimony without recalling the relevant witness.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the magistrate was entitled to dismiss the case if he was in doubt at the close of the prosecution case and that the magistrate's actions were within his discretion. The respondent argued that the conflicting evidence justified the magistrate's doubt and that the visit to the locus in quo was conducted to better understand the evidence, not to substitute for it.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Code, section 208
A magistrate must state reasons for dismissing a charge at the close of the prosecution case under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 02
Attorney-General v. S. M. Bashir (1948) K.L.R. 23 Pt. 1, 78
A view of the locus in quo is to aid understanding and assessment of evidence, not to substitute for sworn testimony.
- 03
Judgment of the Court
If a magistrate's observations at the locus in quo cast doubt on a witness's testimony, the witness should be recalled and given an opportunity to address the issue on record.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that while the magistrate's initial failure to provide reasons for dismissing the charge was an error, this was remedied when the magistrate subsequently furnished reasons upon the court's direction. The court emphasized that a magistrate must not substitute a view of the locus in quo for evidence and must ensure that any adverse findings arising from such a view are put to the relevant witness for response. However, given the conflicting prosecution evidence and the magistrate's doubt at the close of the Crown case, the court could not conclude that the magistrate was wrong in holding there was no case to answer. The appeal was therefore dismissed, but the court reiterated the procedural safeguards required when a view of the locus in quo is conducted.
Obiter and limits
- A magistrate visiting the locus in quo must take care not to constitute himself a witness and should not substitute a view for evidence.
- If anything adverse to an accused results from a view, the accused should be given an opportunity to address it.
- The object of a view is to enable the evidence to be better understood and appraised, not to replace it.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The magistrate's decision to dismiss the charge is upheld.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
APPELLATE CRIMINAL
Before SIR KENNETH O'CONNOR, C. J., and RUDD, J.
THE QUEEN Appellant
v.
J. ECONOMIDES Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1956 (Case Stated).
Traffic Ordinance, 1953, section 47 (1)—Criminal Procedure Code sections 208, by 367. 372—Charge dismissed Magistrate—Case Stated—Whether Magistrate should give reasons for dismissal.
The respondent was charged with careless driving under section 47 (1) of the Traffic Ordinance, 1953. A case was stated at the instance of the Attorney-General to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court as to whether the Magistrate was correct in holding that there was no case for the accused to answer. The Prosecution evidence had been conflicting and the case must have turned upon the credence given to the witnesses after a view by the Magistrate of the scene of the accident; but the Magistrate had given no reasons for dismissing the charge.
Held (1-6-56).—That the case must be remitted to the Magistrate under section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code for him to state the reasons for his decision. Dictum in<br>Attorney-General v. S. M. Bashir, (1948) K. L. R. 23 Pt. 1, 78, to the effect that the Magistrate in stating a case should refrain from setting out any views upon the evidence heard, or matter indicative of his reasoning, not followed.
Held (25-6-56)
(2) That a magistrate visiting the *locus in quo* must take great care not to constitute himself a witness and that a view should not be substituted for evidence in the case. The object of a view of the locality is to enable the evidence to be better understood and to enable it to be better appraised and weighed.
(3) If, on a properly conducted view of the locus in quo, it becomes evident that a witness either could or could not have seen what he has testified to having seen, that fact may be taken into consideration in weighing his evidence.
(4) A view, however, should not be used as a substitute for evidence, but as a<br>means of understanding and assessing evidence. If it is desired to challenge the evidence<br>of a witness on the ground that he could not have see desirable that he should be recalled to the witness box and the matter be put to him, in order that he may have the opportunity of correcting any misapprehension, and that there may be sworn testimony dealing with the point on the record. In particular, if anything adverse to an accused person has resulted from a view, he should be given an opportunity of dealing with it if he wishes.
(5) The proceedings in the instance case had not been wholly satisfactory; but as the Magistrate at the end of the Prosecution case was in doubt, the Court could not say that he had been wrong in holding that there was no case to answer.
Davies, Crown Counsel for the Appellant.
Sirley, for the Respondent.
The judgment of the Court (O'Connor, C, J, and Rudd J.) was delivered by O'Connor C. J.
JUDGMENT.—The respondent was charged with careless driving contrary to section 47 (1) of the Traffic Ordinance, 1953. The magistrate dismissed the case under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code without stating reasons. The Attorney-General applied for a case to be stated to have it determined whether or not the magistrate was correct in law in holding at the conclusion of the
Crown case that there was no case for the accused to answer. The Court remitted the case to the Magistrate, under section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for him to give reasons for his decision. The magistrate furnished reasons. It appeared that the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses being conflicting the Magistrate had been in doubt at the end of the Crown case and had decided to visit and inspect the scene of the accident. There, he came to the conclusion that one of the witnesses for the Prosecution could not have seen what he had testified he had seen. The magistrate did not recall the witness concerned or give him an opportunity of correcting any misapprehension and took no steps to record anything as to his observations at the scene.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.