Orosco v R

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Bourke P.,Archer, J.A.,Hogan, J.A
• Judgment Date: 24 February 1973
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1973 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1972
• Date: 24 February 1973

Court of Appeal

Bourke P.; Archer, J.A.; Hogan, J.A

Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1972

Orosco

and

Regina

Delivered by Hogan J. A.

Criminal law - Appeal against Conviction — Sentence

Facts: Accused absent — Appellant was convicted of robbery but remanded in custody for sentence- Conduct of appellant such as to render it necessary for court to pass sentence in his absence — Whether court had jurisdiction to pass sentence in respect of a felony in the absence of the prisoner

Held: Sentence was validly imposed in absence of appellant — Appeals dismissed.

1 The appellant has filed three grounds of appeal which read as follows:–

• “(1) On the 13th day of October 1972 the appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery contrary to Section 161 (b) of the Criminal Code Chapter 21 of the Laws of British Honduras 1958, which crime is a felony. Sentence was reserved by the Court.

• (2) On the 20th day of October the appellant was in his absence sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for 10 years.

• (3) The appellant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence.

• (4) The appellant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence and conviction on the ground that he was sentenced in his absence.”

2 It appears that after the appellant had been convicted of the offence of robbery, contrary to Section 161 (b) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 21 of the Laws of British Honduras, he was remanded in custody for sentence. When, some five days later, he appeared for sentence, he showed signs of abnormality, reclining in the dock and not responding when addressed by the Court. The Court was also informed that during the afternoon he attempted to rip off his clothes, made a lot of noise and had to be taken back to prison to be dressed before he could be brought to Court.

3 The Court directed that he be examined by a doctor and brought up again two days later on the 20th October, 1972.

4 On the latter date, according to the record, the appellant came into Court making a lot of noise, using indecent language and apparently not in his right mind. Before as counsel has amplified this by saying that he was screaming and shouting in a manner which made it impossible for the Court to proceed in his presence.

5 The Court directed that he be removed and, having taken evidence from the doctor which indicated that the prisoner could behave normally if he wished, the Court proceeded to deal with sentence and, having heard evidence of character, impose a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

6 This sentence was entered by the Deputy Registrar on the back of the indictment as required by Section 148 of Chapter 22.

7 An order of committal to prison for ten years was drawn up and signed by the Deputy Registrar on the same day, but three days later, on 23rd October, the appellant was again brought before the Court and informed that it appeared from the authorities he should be present when sentenced and he was asked if he had anything to say. In reply he said he was innocent and, according to the record, a sentence of ten years was again imposed. This was not, however, followed by any alteration in the entry oath on the back of the indictment or a new committal order bearing the date of the 23 ^rd October.

8 Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gray, submits that on a conviction for felony,...