IN 1968, Charles Singh , the appellant and two other men who were caught under the floor of a woman’s bedroom in the process of stripping themselves of clothing and donning masks, were charged with ‘Roguery & Vagabondage’.
In Court, the Magistrate found them guilty and sentence was imposed. Singh appealed.
The Full Court constituted by Acting Chief Justice Mr. Guya Persaud and Justice Akbar Khan, nicknamed the ‘Angry God’, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the magistrate’s conviction and sentence.
The facts of the case disclosed that Charles Singh, the appellant and two others were separately charged with the offence of roguery and vagabondage. The cases were heard together, the magistrate writing in his note book the words “by consent”.
In his reasons for decision, the magistrate spoke of the defendants being jointly charged. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was not on the record sufficient to indicate that he agreed to be tried together with the other defendants, and even if he did, vagrancy was not the type of offence in respect of which defendants can be tried jointly .
On appeal it was held: that (i) the words “(by consent) written by the magistrate was sufficient to indicate that the charges were heard together with the consent of all the defendants
(ii) the defendants were not jointly charged; their cases were heard together and the magistrate’s mis-statement that they were jointly charged was inadvertent and did not affect the rest of the decision. Appeal dismissed.
S.E.Wilson for the appellant.
G.H.R Jackman for the respondent.
In this case , the appellant and two others were separately charged with the offence of roguery and vagabondage in that on Sunday , 26th May, 1968, they were found under the dwelling house of one Jasoda Singh, at Herstelling, In the Georgetown Judicial District , and did not give a satisfactory account of themselves, contrary to section 144 (iv) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance, Chapter 14.
The facts relevant to this appeal are that the three men were seen by the occupants of Jasoda Singh’s house under the floor of one of the bed rooms in the process of stripping themselves of their clothes and donning masks. An alarm was raised and the men ran away. The yard in which Jasoda Singh lived was enclosed with palings.
The three charges were heard together. And the first point taken on behalf of the appellant before us is that there does not appear on the record sufficient to indicate that the appellant agreed to be tried together with the other defendants, and even if he did, vagrancy was one of the type of offences in which the defendants, separately charged, could not be tried together.
After entering the cases, but before taking the evidence , the magistrate wrote the words “By consent”. This in our opinion is sufficient to indicate that the three charges were being heard together with the consent of all the defendants, which was not the case in Emanuel v. Cox (1967) 10 W.I.R. 560, referred to us by counsel for the appellant . There the magistrate did not record In his note book that he had asked the defendants whether they objected or not , although he did not state so in his reason for decision, and it was held that it was the duty of the magistrate to do so, as it was a matter which might or might not go to the jurisdiction of the court. As we have already indicated , there is enough on the record to show that the magistrate obtained the consent of the appellant and the other defendants for the three charges to be heard together.
Even if there was consent, argues counsel, vagrancy is not the type of offence in respect of which defendants can be tried jointly.
Jurisdiction to hear complaints together is vested in a magistrate by section 28 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance, Chapter 15, which provides as follows:-
“Where two or more complaints appear to arise out of the same circumstances, the court may, if it thinks fit, and if all the parties consen, hear and determine the complaints at one and the same time.”
We would have thought that the instant case is an example of two or more complaints arising out of the same circumstances. We can find no authority which says that two or more vagrancy charges which appear to arise out of the same circumstances cannot be tried together once the parties agree .
We can find nothing in this section which suggests that the procedure adopted by the magistrate was wrong.
In his reasons for decision, the magistrate did speak of the three defendants being jointly charged. This is incorrect; the defendants were not jointly charged; their cases were heard together.
We believe that this mis-statement was due to inadvertence , but in any event it does not affect the rest of his decision.
For this reason, we would dismiss this appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence.
The appellant must pay the respondent’s cost.