Sanker v Higinio

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1973
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1973 CA 7
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1968
• Date: 20 November 1973

Court of Appeal

Dickson, C.J.

Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1968

Sanker

and

Higinio

Criminal law - Sexual Offence — Evidence — Corroboration

Evidence - Corroboration

Practice and Procedure - Courts — Magistrate's Court

Facts: Complainant in sexual offence — Conflicting evidence as to whether complainant suffered injury — Whether such evidence amounted to corroboration — Magistrate acted on evidence — No reference in reasons for decision that magistrate directed himself on risk of so acting — Whether Magistrate failed to direct himself before convicting accused

Facts: Complainant victim of sexual offence — Magistrate acted on her uncorroborated evidence

Facts: Case of Complainant revealing evidence of rape — Magistrate proceeded on charge of indecent assault

Held: Appeal allowed — Conviction Squashed.

Held: Duty of magistrate to state in reasons for decision that he had directed himself on risk of so acting — Appeal allowed — Conviction quashed.

Held: Duty of magistrate to proceed under the provisions of the law with a view to committal to the Supreme Court for trial — Appeal Allowed.

1 The appellant Mr. Reneld Sanker was on the 2nd day of October, 1968, convicted by the Acting Assistant Magistrate sitting at Belize City, for an offence of indecent assault contrary to section 42 (f) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 21. He was sentenced to six, months' imprisonment with hard labour. The appellant there and then gave verbal notice of appeal. This Court is at a loss and is astonished to find that there has been a most inordinate delay in disposing of this appeal; and as far as the record goes, the appellant's counsel does not appear to be at fault. I do not wish to dilate upon the obvious consequences of belated hearing of appeals. In my view, an appeal particularly in a criminal case should be disposed of with a degree of alacrity — unlike probably in the case of a civil matter.

2 Be that as it may, the appellant through his counsel, filed two grounds of appeal. Ground on alleged illegalities set out seriatim in three paragraphs. For reasons which will appear later it is unnecessary for this Court to consider these paragraphs, or in fact deal with ground one. Suffice it to say, the illegalities alleged in the first ground are that the trial, magistrate heard evidence given in the Spanish language in the absence of. an interpreter, which language was not understood by the appellant; that the trial magistrate addressed a witness in the Spanish language in the absence of an interpreter; and thirdly that the trial magistrate did not inform the appellant of his right to give evidence under oath. If these allegations are valid, they were indeed gross irregularities; and magistrates are reminded that in circumstances where an accused does not understand the language of a witness, it is mandatory that an interpreter should be used; and where an accused person is undefended, a magistrate should clearly indicate to him at the end of the prosecution's case, if he rules that there is a case to answer, that the accused is clearly informed of his rights.

3 We come now to the nub of this appeal. This is succinctly set out in ground two. Mr. Flowers, learned Crown Counsel, who appears for the defendant in limine indicates that he does not support the conviction and gave substantial and very legal and valid reasons for that stand. Without being prejudiced, before the appeal came up for hearing, this morning having perused the record including the Reasons for Decision, I too, arrived at...