1. Introduction
Case Name:
Regina v. Amadu Bunduka Chirm (CR APP 18 of 1963)
Court:
Court of Appeal of Sierra Leone
Judges:
- Ames Ag. P.
- Dove-Edwin J.A.
- E. F. Luke Ag. J.A.
Date of Judgment:
12 August 1963
2. Factual Background
Amadu Bunduka Chirm, the respondent, was initially charged with perjury under the Perjury Act, 1911, as well as three counts under the Larceny Act, 1916. After a preliminary inquiry, the magistrate discharged Chirm on the charges under the Larceny Act but committed him for trial on the perjury charge at the September 1962 sessions of the Supreme Court. However, the Crown later filed an information abandoning the perjury charge and instead charged Chirm with the three offenses under the Larceny Act.
During the trial, Chirm’s counsel raised an objection to the new information, arguing that it was invalid since it did not include the perjury charge on which Chirm had been committed for trial. The judge ruled in favor of the respondent and quashed the information. The Crown then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Subsequently, in November 1962, the Attorney-General filed new information in identical terms, charging Chirm with the same three counts under the Larceny Act. Chirm’s counsel again raised a preliminary objection, arguing that, since Chirm had been committed to the September sessions, he could not be tried at the November sessions without first obtaining an order of the court pursuant to section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1960. The judge agreed and held that Chirm was not properly before the court, thus stating a case for the Court of Appeal.
3. Legal Issues
The appeal raised several important legal issues:
-
Committal for Trial on Different Charges:
- Whether it was permissible for the Attorney-General to bring Chirm to trial at a different session of the Supreme Court on charges that were not part of the original committal.
-
Application of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act:
- Whether the Attorney-General was required to obtain a court order under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1960, to bring Chirm to trial at the November sessions after he had been committed for trial at the September sessions.
-
Quashing of Information:
- Whether the decision to quash the original information in the September sessions was valid and whether the new information filed in the November sessions was permissible without violating Chirm’s rights.
4. The Court’s Analysis
Committal for Trial on Different Charges:
The Court of Appeal first addressed whether it was lawful for the Attorney-General to abandon the perjury charge and file new information charging Chirm with three counts under the Larceny Act. The court noted that the magistrate had discharged Chirm on these larceny charges during the preliminary inquiry. The issue arose when the Attorney-General, instead of proceeding with the perjury charge (for which Chirm was committed), decided to prosecute Chirm on charges under the Larceny Act.
The court referred to section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows the Attorney-General to modify the charges and file new information if necessary. The court explained that the Attorney-General’s decision to drop the perjury charge and proceed with the larceny charges, although unconventional, did not automatically render the information invalid. The judges stated: “The fact that the Attorney-General failed to incorporate the original perjury charge in the information does not make the information bad.”
Application of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act:
The Court of Appeal then considered the argument raised by Chirm’s counsel that, since he had been committed for trial at the September sessions, he could not be tried at the November sessions without an order of the court pursuant to section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Section 125 governs the postponement and adjournment of trials in the Supreme Court.
The court held that, under normal circumstances, once a person is committed for trial at a specific session, they cannot be tried at a subsequent session without a formal court order. However, the court noted that in this case, the September sessions were interrupted by the objection to the information, which was only resolved by the Court of Appeal in November. Given this delay, the court ruled that it was permissible for the Attorney-General to file new information in the November sessions without first obtaining a court order.
The court stated: “The failure to obtain a specific court order under section 125 to proceed at the November sessions did not invalidate the trial. The accused could still be brought to trial, given the circumstances.”
Quashing of Information:
Finally, the court considered whether the decision to quash the original information was justified. The court explained that the judge’s decision to quash the information in the September sessions was incorrect. The Court of Appeal had previously ruled that the quashing of the information was unwarranted because the charges under the Larceny Act were not entirely incompatible with the original committal on the perjury charge.
“The original information was quashed in error. The quashing was not necessary, as the charges were valid despite the shift from perjury to larceny.”
Given that the original quashing was found to be erroneous, the Attorney-General was permitted to file the new information in the November sessions, and Chirm was properly brought to trial.
5. Judgment
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent, Amadu Bunduka Chirm, was properly brought to trial at the November sessions despite being initially committed for trial at the September sessions. The court found that the filing of new information without a formal court order under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act was permissible, given the specific circumstances of the case. The court also ruled that the quashing of the original information was wrong.
“The appeal is dismissed, and the respondent is ordered to stand trial on the charges brought against him under the Larceny Act.”
6. Conclusion
The case of R v. Amadu Bunduka Chirm sets an important precedent in Sierra Leonean criminal procedure, particularly regarding the rights of the accused in relation to committal for trial and the filing of information by the Attorney-General. The Court of Appeal’s decision clarifies that, under certain circumstances, it is permissible for the Attorney-General to file new information in a subsequent court session, even if the accused had been committed for trial in an earlier session. Furthermore, the court ruled that the failure to obtain a court order under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not automatically invalidate the trial, especially when delays occur due to legal objections.
Keywords
- Criminal procedure
- Committal for trial
- Information filing
- Section 125 Criminal Procedure Act
- Perjury Act
- Larceny Act
- Supreme Court sessions
- Quashing of information
- Criminal appeal Sierra Leone
Sample Questions on the Case
-
What is the significance of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act in this case?
- Section 125 governs the postponement of trials and the requirement to obtain a court order for trying an accused person in a session different from the one to which they were originally committed. In this case, the court ruled that section 125 did not invalidate the trial despite the Attorney-General filing new information in a different session.
-
Why did the Court of Appeal dismiss the appeal in R v. Amadu Bunduka Chirm?
- The court dismissed the appeal because it found that Chirm was properly brought to trial at the November sessions, even though he was originally committed for trial in the September sessions. The court ruled that the filing of new information was valid under the circumstances, and the quashing of the original information was incorrect.
-
How does this case impact the rights of the accused when new information is filed by the Attorney-General?
- This case establishes that the Attorney-General has the authority to file new information, even if the original charges differ from the committal. The ruling clarifies that such actions do not necessarily violate the rights of the accused, provided that the procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Act are respected.
-
What role did the objection to the original information play in the delay of the trial?
- The objection to the original information caused a delay in the trial, as the court had to resolve whether the information was valid. This delay ultimately led to the Attorney-General filing new information in the November sessions, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Application of Principles
The principles established in R v. Amadu Bunduka Chirm are critical for legal practitioners dealing with criminal procedure, especially in cases where the Attorney-General modifies the charges or files new information. The case emphasizes the importance of understanding the procedural rules governing committal for trial and the filing of information, particularly under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
For defense attorneys, this case serves as a reminder to scrutinize the process of committal and the filing of information to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected. Prosecutors, on the other hand, can rely on this ruling to argue that certain procedural errors, such as the failure to obtain a court order, do not necessarily invalidate the trial if the circumstances justify proceeding with new information.
This ruling provides a clear framework for navigating complex criminal procedure issues in Sierra Leone, particularly in cases involving multiple charges and the filing of new information in subsequent court sessions.