Uganda v Polino
Uganda v Polino (Criminal Session Case 20 of 1989) [1990] UGHC 40 (7 March 1990)
The court found that the trial magistrate committed several procedural irregularities: failing to put the facts of the case to the accused after his plea of guilty, recording ambiguous pleas, and relying on unproven previous convictions to impose consecutive sentences as a habitual offender. The particulars of the offence in count 2 were vague and did not adequately inform the accused of the charge. The established procedure, as set out in ADAN v. Republic and followed in Uganda, requires that after a plea of guilty, the facts must be narrated and put to the accused for admission or denial. O…
Source excerpt
- Plea Procedure
- Conviction Irregularities
- Habitual Offender Status
- Proof Of Previous Conviction