Chief of Police v Pilgrim
| Jurisdiction | Antigua and Barbuda |
| Judge | St. Bernard Ag. C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1975 |
| Neutral Citation | AG 1975 CA 5 |
| Date | 14 November 1975 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda) |
| Docket Number | No. 2 of 1975 |
Court of Appeal
Davis, C.J.; St. Bernard, J.A.; Peterkin, J.A.
No. 2 of 1975
Jurisdiction - Magistrate's court' Appeal from judgment quashing an order of committal made by a magistrate and ordering him to hear a matter summarily - Respondent had been charged with 40 (reduced to 14) charges under the Sedition and Undesirable Publications Act and the magistrate had decided that he should be tried indictably - Whether s. 15 of the Act vested in the accused the right to summary trial after he elected to be tried in this manner — Finding by court that the section vested a discretion in the magistrate which he had exercised before the trial began — Appeal against order of the judge and upholding the magistrate's decision allowed.
This is an appeal from the judgment of Nedd J., quashing an order of committal dated the 7th June 1974 made by Magistrate Sobers and further ordering that he hear and determine summarily fourteen charges laid under section 4 of the Sedition and Undesirable Publications Act Chapter 75 of the Laws of Antigua, for which the respondent had been committed.
The respondent was originally charged indictably on forty charges under the above Ordinance and appeared before the magistrate at the preliminary inquiry in August 1973. At the close of the prosecution's case submissions were made and the respondent was discharged on twenty-six of these offences on the 31st May 1974. After further submissions the magistrate decided to allow the respondent to elect under section 15 of the same Ordinance to be tried summarily. The respondent elected to be tried summarily and the matter was adjourned to the 7th June 1974 at his counsel(s request. No plea wad taken from the respondent, neither was any evidence heard. At the resumption on 7th June the magistrate announced that he had changed his mind in respect of summer trial and stated as follows:–
“Court informs counsel and the accused that, since giving its ruling on 31st May 1974 on the legal submission made in the matter following upon which the accused elected to be tried summarily in respect of the remaining 14 charges it had given further thought to the question whether or not these charges are to be dealt with summarily. The court had re-read very carefully the several documents admitted in evidence and had reached the conclusion that it ought not to proceed summarily with the charges in the light of the contents of the documents. The matter was much too grave to be dealt with in a magistrate's court. Accordingly the Court has changed its mind and has decided to commit the accused to stand trial before judge and jury,”
The matter was continued as a preliminary, investigation and the respondent was committed for trial before the High Court. Before his trial at the Assizes, application was made on his behalf by way of certiorari and mandamus to have the committal quashed and to order the magistrate to determine the charges summarily. At the hearing of this application the order already referred to was made.
The grounds of the appeal are as follows:
The learned trail judge was wrong in holding–
(1) that an order of certiorari does lie with respect to the order for committal trial; and
(2) that section 15 of the Sedition and Undesirable Publications Act vests in an accused person the right to accused trial after he elects to be tried summarily and before he has pleaded to the charges.”
In respect of ground one counsel submitted that certiorari does
not lie...
To continue reading
Request your trial