Treminio v Chulin

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 16 November 1973
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1973 CA 4
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1970
• Date: 16 November 1973

Court of Appeal

Dickson, C.J.

Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1970

Treminio

and

Chulin

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence — Young Offender

Practice and Procedure - Criminal Procedure — Plea of Guilty

Facts: Accused under seventeen at date of commission of offence — No previous convictions — Plea of guilty — Presence of mitigating factors

Facts: Appeal against sentence in case where accused entered plea of guilty

Held: Appeal allowed. Sentence of 6 months squashed — Fine substituted.

Held: Necessary for magistrates on conclusion of statement of facts where accused pleads guilty, to inquire whether the accused has accepted the facts as stated, and if he does not accept them in toto, to inquire where he differs — Magistrate should not proceed to pass sentence immediately after statement of facts — Magistrates duty bound to put allolutus to prisoner before sentence is passed — Appeal Allowed.

1 This is an appeal against sentence only. The appellant Mr. Adolfo Treminio who was then 16 years old, appeared before a Magistrate sitting in the Orange Walk Magisterial District on 24th July, 1970, on a charge of stealing from the person, contrary to section 155 (c) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 21. Before proceeding farther with this judgment, I am constrained to point out that it is most unsatisfactory that this appeal should lave taken more than three years to be heard; and unfortunately this situation is by not means an isolated one.

2 The appellant under the provisions of section 50(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance, consented to the case being tried summarily. He pleaded guilty and the facts were stated. It was also said that he had no previous convictions. Without any further ado following the statement of the facts, the Magistrate on hearing that there were no previous convictions proceeded to impose a sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labour on the appellant.

3 From a procedural point of view the Magistrate, after hearing the facts, should have complied with section 44 (2) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance, which reads:

• “44. (1) ……..

• (2) If the defendant says that he is guilty and shows no cause, or no sufficient cause, why an order should not be made against him, the court shall make such order against him as the justice of the case requires.”

4 The reason for the above-mentioned provision is fairly obvious because there are cases where a plea of guilty might well justify a plea of not guilty being recorded following a statement of the facts; or a plea might turn out to be equivocal in which event a plea of not guilty would be recorded. Magistrates are reminded that where a defendant pleads guilty, on conclusion of the statement of facts, the defendant must be asked whether he accepts the facts as stated and if he does not accept them in toto, the Magistrate should inquire where he differs. It is pertinent to note that “order” is defined in the Ordinance thus: ““order” includes any conviction in respect of a summary offence”.

5 Therefore, if a Magistrate after hearing the facts and what is important, what the defendant has to say about the facts as stated and the Magistrate is fully satisfied that the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled and that the plea is unequivocal, he should proceed to convict the defendant, but using a phase such as this or the like “Defendant is convicted on his own plea”....