Page 580 - Magistrates Conference 2019

(d) Where the occurrences of breach are substantially prejudicial and an appellate court is
of the view that great harm was occasioned to an appellant, a conviction will be

20
quashed as unsafe.

(e) That to safeguard the fairness of any trial, a number of rules have been developed to
ensure that the proceedings however closely contested… are conducted in a manner

which is orderly and fair, namely;

- The duty of prosecuting counsel is not to obtain a conviction at all costs but to act

as a minister of justice.

- While the duty of counsel may require a strong and direct challenge to the

evidence of a witness, and strong criticism may properly be made of a witness or

defendant so long as that criticism is based on evidence… there can never be any
justification for bullying, intimidation, personal vilification or insult…

- It is the responsibility of the judge to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in
an orderly and proper manner which is fair to both prosecution and defence. He

must neither be nor appear to be partisan. If counsel begins to misbehave, he must

at once exert his authority to require the observance of acceptable standards of
conduct.

Insofar as this was not found to have been observed the court felt that the breaches were
sufficient to render the trial unfair and the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

Can a magistrate proceed to dismiss a matter on grounds of abuse where he has already

stated a case for the supreme court and awaits an answer?

In the Queen v Calman Hall et al, Court concluded that at that time (the time of the Chief

Magistrate’s dismissal of the charge), as the decision on the question referred to the Supreme
Court remained outstanding, the Chief Magistrate had no jurisdiction to dispose of the

proceedings, as she was constrained to dispose of the matter only in furtherance of section
20(5) of the Constitution. The only option available to the Chief Magistrate at the time was to

temporarily stay the proceedings, pending the completion of the question which she had

referred to the Supreme Court under section 20(3) of the Constitution.

20
Randall v R (2002) 60 W.I.R. 103 referenced.