Baptiste Alias Bumpy v Gellizeau

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Lewis C.J.
• Judgment Date: 21 January 1971
• Neutral Citation: LC 1971 CA 2
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4/1970
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 21 January 1971

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Gordon, J.A.; Lewis, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 4/1970

Baptiste Alias Bumpy

and

Gellizeau

Appearances:

Appellant in person.

L. A. Williams for the respondent.

Practice and procedure - Ex parte trial

Facts: The appellant was convicted after an ex parte trial for the offence of assault and battery. He appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appellant was in Her Majesty's Prison on remand and could not appear in court. Also, the appellant was convicted after an adjournment to a date of which he was never notified. The question was whether the conviction could stand –

Held: The court construed section 1075 of the Criminal Code and held that when the date for which the person was summoned the case is called and the defendant does not appear, the magistrate must decide whether to proceed ex parte or whether to issue a warrant or whether acting under section 1068 he is going to adjourn the case, but cannot adjourn the case in the absence of the defendant and then on a subsequent occasion proceed to hear the case ex parte without satisfying himself that the date of the new trial has been duly notified to the defendant. Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside and the case remitted for trial by another magistrate.

Lewis C.J.

1 The appellant vas convicted by the magistrate of the First District Court, after an ex parte trial on the 8th September, 1970, for the offence of assault and battery. He appeals against his conviction and sentence. He is not represented before this court but he stated in his ground of appeal that the case was called in his absence, that he was in Her Majesty's Prison on remand. It does not appear from the record that any writ of habeas corpus was issued to produce him in court on the date fixed for the hearing of the case, and therefore it is quite obvious he could not have come. The court has asked for and received a statement from the Superintendent of Prisons from which it appears that he was on that day on remand in prison. So in the interests of justice it would in any event be necessary to set aside this conviction and remit the case for a retrial.

2 Looking at the record the court observes a further defect, namely, that the appellant was convicted after an adjournment to a date of which he was never notified. Since we have found the same defect in proceedings in another territory, we think it desirable to say something about the...