Page 140 - Magistrates Conference 2019

39. The approach to be adopted by the Court of Appeal is a pragmatic, functional one. This
approach is context driven and it involves an examination of the evidentiary record, the

specific issues raised and any brief oral reasons given by the Magistrate. If the case is (a)

factually, a straight forward one; (b) legally, not a complex case; and (c) if the reasons for
the magistrate’s decision are capable of being ascertained by reference to the record of

evidence, then the absence of written reasons may be less likely to deprive the Court of
Appeal of its ability to perform the appellate function. The absence of written reasons in such

a setting will constitute less of a handicap than it might otherwise be in other situations

which fall at the opposite end of the spectrum.

The determination of whether a case is a factually straightforward one may not always
however be an easy exercise. Many cases turn purely on issues of credibility. Credibility has

several components which often introduce nuances into a case. Such nuances may sometimes
make it essential for an appellate court to know specifically how a magistrate has “weighed

6
up” a particular issue or reconciled particular items of evidence.”

In Montano, Roberts v Cpl. Sewdass Mag. App. No.108 of 2016, the Court of Appeal

considered whether the magistrate’s delivery of her ruling convicting the appellants without
providing reasons for the decision amounted to a material irregularity. The Court adopted the

pragmatic functional test:

“In adopting the pragmatic, functional approach as enunciated Francis Jones v Sgt. Sheldon

David #1173060, further supported by the decisions in R v R.E.M. and R v Vuradin, we
proceed to examine the evidentiary record and the specific issues raised, since there were no

reasons given by the Magistrate. We are not reviewing the evidentiary record so as to see
whether there was sufficient evidence upon which the magistrate could have come to the

decision at which she arrived as in the decision in Forbes v Chandrabhan Maharaj. Instead,

we are engaging in a perusal of the evidentiary record to determine:

(i) The nature of the evidence and whether it was complicated or straightforward;
(ii) Whether the legal and evidentiary issues raised were simple or complex ones;

6 Francis Jones v. Sgt. Sheldon David Mag. App. No. 64 of 2014 Mohammed JA at [38] – [39]
Page 8 of 26