Wakilii

The Queen v Economides (Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1956)

East African Court of Appeal · [1956] EACA 32 · 1956 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Case stated by Attorney-General following magistrate's dismissal of careless driving charge at close of prosecution case
Decision
Appeal dismissed after magistrate provided reasons; magistrate's dismissal of charge upheld as he was entitled to find no case to answer when in doubt at close of prosecution case

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that when a case is stated, a magistrate must provide reasons for dismissing a charge. A magistrate conducting a view of the locus in quo must not constitute himself a witness and must not substitute the view for evidence. A view should only be used to understand and assess evidence already given. If a view reveals that a witness could not have seen what he testified to, the witness should be recalled and given an opportunity to address the matter, with sworn testimony recorded. The court declined to follow the dictum in Attorney-General v S M Bashir that magistrates should refrain from setting out reasoning when stating a case.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed after magistrate provided reasons; magistrate's dismissal of charge upheld as he was entitled to find no case to answer when in doubt at close of prosecution case

Facts

The respondent was charged with careless driving under section 47(1) of the Traffic Ordinance 1953. The prosecution evidence was conflicting. At the close of the prosecution case, the magistrate was in doubt and visited the scene of the accident. Based on his view of the scene, he concluded that one prosecution witness could not have seen what he testified to having seen. The magistrate dismissed the charge under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code without stating reasons and without recalling the witness to address the discrepancy. The Attorney-General applied for a case to be stated. The Court initially remitted the matter for the magistrate to provide reasons, which he subsequently did.

Issues

  1. Whether a magistrate dismissing a charge under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code must give reasons for dismissal when a case is stated.
  2. Whether a magistrate conducting a view of the locus in quo may use observations from that view to reject prosecution evidence without recalling the witness or recording those observations.
  3. What are the proper limits and procedures for a magistrate's view of the scene of an alleged offence.

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Magistrate under section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code to state reasons for his decision.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Case Stated — Duty to Give Reasons
When a case is stated under the Criminal Procedure Code following dismissal of a charge, the magistrate must provide reasons for the decision to dismiss.
View of Locus in Quo — Proper Purpose and Limits
A magistrate visiting the locus in quo must take great care not to constitute himself a witness. The object of a view of the locality is to enable the evidence to be better understood and to enable it to be better appraised and weighed, not to substitute the view for evidence in the case.
View of Locus in Quo — Use in Assessing Witness Credibility
If, on a properly conducted view of the locus in quo, it becomes evident that a witness either could or could not have seen what he has testified to having seen, that fact may be taken into consideration in weighing his evidence.
View of Locus in Quo — Procedure When View Contradicts Testimony
If it is desired to challenge the evidence of a witness on the ground that he could not have seen what he has asserted based on a view, it is desirable that the witness should be recalled to the witness box and the matter be put to him, in order that he may have the opportunity of correcting any misapprehension, and that there may be sworn testimony dealing with the point on the record. In particular, if anything adverse to an accused person has resulted from a view, he should be given an opportunity of dealing with it if he wishes.
No Case to Answer — Standard at Close of Prosecution Case
Where a magistrate is in doubt at the end of the prosecution case, he is entitled to hold that there is no case to answer and dismiss the charge under section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Traffic Ordinance 1953 s.47(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.208
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.367
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.372

Cases cited (1)

  • Attorney-General v S M Bashir (1948) K.L.R. 23 Pt. I, 78

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

The Queen v Economides (Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1956) [1956] EACA 32 (1 January 1956)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.