{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid865520\rsid4143317\rsid8092916\rsid8193516\rsid8265070\rsid8409883
\rsid8461552\rsid8724184\rsid11162513\rsid12454769\rsid16258066\rsid16258383}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6775;}{\info{\author teniau_d}{\operator tuifagalele_n}{\creatim\yr2005\mo12\dy12\hr11\min44}{\revtim\yr2006\mo6\dy13\hr9\min21}{\version10}
{\edmins50}{\nofpages4}{\nofwords1455}{\nofchars8297}{\*\company USP}{\nofcharsws9733}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace120
\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot8092916 \fet0\sectd \linex0\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9
\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11162513 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513 [1991] 37 FLR 130}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513\charrsid11162513 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11162513 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513\charrsid11162513 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12454769 HIGH COURT OF FIJI
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12454769 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12454769 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 ANIRUDH SINGH & OTHERS}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16258383 v}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 STATE}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16258066 [}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid11162513 HIGH COURT}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 ,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513  1991(Jesuratnam J), 2 December}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16258066 ]}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11162513 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11162513 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513\charrsid8724184 Appellate Jurisdiction}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16258383 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 Crime}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513  }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513  }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 
procedure - non electable offences - whether option of High Court trial affected by Electable Offences Decree 1988.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16258383 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 
Crime - offences - sedition and unlawful assembly - whether serious enough to warrant committal to the High Court for trial.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 Having been charged with sedition and unlawful assembly the accuseds' requests}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 to be tried in the High Court were refused by the Chief Magistrate. On appeal}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 against the refusal the High Court }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid11162513 HELD:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 
 (1) the Electable Offences Decree}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 1988 did not affect the Magistrates discretion to decide }{
\fs24\expnd0\expndtw2\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 whether }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 the seriousness}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184\charrsid8724184 of the charges warranted trial in the High Court and (2) in the circumstances the Magistrate had rightly decided that they did not.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 

\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8461552 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8461552\charrsid8724184 Case cited:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8461552 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid865520 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid865520 Charles Dennis}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184  18 Cr. App. R. 39}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 
\par Interlocutory appeal to the High Court.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid865520 Miles Johnson}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184  for 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th appellants
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid865520 M. Raza}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184  for the 3rd appellant
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid865520 I. Mataitoga}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 , Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid865520 Jesuratnam J:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 
\par In this case the seven appellants were charged in the Magistrates' Court of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 
Suva on two counts of (1) having burnt a copy of the Constitution of the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 
Republic of Fiji on 18th October 1990 with seditious intention contrary to}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 section 65(1)(iv) and 66(1)(a) o
f the Penal Code and (2) having taken part in}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 an unlawful assembly on the same day contrary to section 86 and 87 of the}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 Penal Code.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 
\par It is recorded that on 15th November 1990 all the accused elected High Court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 trial and the case was puff off for 29th Novem
ber 1990 in order to finalise the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 position of }{\fs24\expnd0\expndtw2\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 
all }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 the accused as to the form of preliminary inquiry.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 It appears that all parties, the prosecution, defence and the learned Chief}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 Magistrate acted on the erroneous basis that the offences were electable at}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 least the offence in Count 1. More attention seems to have been devoted to the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid865520  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid865520\charrsid8724184 acrimonious question of conditions of bail. When the true position was realised}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 the prosecution objected to High Court trial on the basis that the offences were non}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 -}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 electable in v
iew of The Electable Offences Decree No. 22 of 1988. The defence however persisted in its purported election and argued that the magistrate was functus officio to change his earlier decision to hold a preliminary inquiry with a view to committal for trial
 by the High Court. After argument the learned Chief Magistrate ruled that the appellants had no right of election and that he was of the view that the case should be tried summarily by him.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 The appellants have appealed to this Court from the learned Chief Magistrate's decision. I shall deal with the grounds of appeal one by one.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 I may say straightaway that I have not been impressed by the argument on the first ground that the learned Chief M
agistrate had no power to vary his earlier decision to hold a preliminary inquiry. That was a decision which was obviously based on a mistake }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 -}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184  a bona fide mistake made by all the parties. Mistake cannot confer jurisdiction where it does not exist. It is n
ow admitted by the defence that the offences are not electable. As such there cannot be a }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317 preliminary inquiry with a view}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 
 to committal unless the DPP successfully moved for a High Court trial with the concurrence of the learned magistrate or the learned ma
gistrate himself in the exercise of his discretion decided that it was a case for committal. Such a course can only take place by the conscious exercise by the magistrate of his discretion.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 At that stage the learned magistrate cannot be deemed to have tak
en all matters into consideration and exercised his discretion to hold a preliminary inquiry. He had merely acquiesced and concurred in the wrong view shared by both the prosecution and defence that the offences were electable. Avory J. said in the Englis
h Court of criminal appeal in the case of }{\fs24\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid16258066 Charles Dennis}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184  (18 Cr. App. R.39) at 40:}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4143317 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 "An irregularity may be waived by consent but not a want of jurisdiction."}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8724184 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 The decision of the learned Chief Magistrate to hold a preliminary inquiry was a nullity. That ground therefore fails.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 On the other grounds of appeal Mr. Johnson who appeared for six of the seven appellants stren}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11162513 u}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 ously argued that the case involves serious questions which are fit for trial by the High Court and that the learned Chief Magistrate had e
xercised his discretion wrongly in refusing a preliminary inquiry. He cited English authorities in support of his argument. He contended that the classification of offences into the electable and non}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8724184 -}
{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 electable categories by Decree No. 22 of 1988 is not conclusive of the question whether the offence is serious or not.
\par 
\par Mr. Johnson submitted that in the first place this was a case in which in the interests of justice the DPP should have himself moved for a High Court trial as serious questions were involved. Even if the DPP did not do so the learned}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 
Chief Magistrate in the exercise of his discretion under section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Code should have taken committal proceedings.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 The DPP's position is that he never 
moved for a High Court trial as the offences were not electable and that no serious issues were involved. He also argued that the magistrate has now no power to initiate committal proceedings on his own under section 224. The DPP argues that section 6 of 
t
he Electable Offences Decree of 1988 has abrogated the entirety of section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I do not agree. Section 224 contemplates three situations in which a magistrate should initiate committal proceedings (1) when the offence is no
t
 triable summarily by the magistrate (2) when the magistrate is of the view that a preliminary inquiry should be held or (3) when the public prosecutor moves for a preliminary inquiry. In my view the Electable Offences Decree of 1988 has in effect altered
 the first situation and abolished the third situation but has preserved intact the second situation. Section }{\fs24\expnd0\expndtw2\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 3 }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 of the Decree now fills the first situation largely and section 4 of the Decree the third situation. But the right of the magistrate to hold a pr
eliminary inquiry in a case in which he deems it fit to do so is preserved and in my view rightly preserved in view of possible cases where such recourse may be necessary.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 What section 6 of the Decree has done is to declare as overridden and invalid those
 provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which are repugnant to the provisions of the decree. The decree overrides the Criminal Procedure Code only "to the extent that this decree deals with the right of trial in the High Court of offences prescribed in
 the schedule." The second situation therefore remains unaffected.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 
I am of the view that the learned Chief Magistrate rightly construed that he had a discretion to exercise under section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However the crux of this appeal i
s whether the learned Chief Magistrate has exercised his discretion and exercised it correctly.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 The argument of Mr. Johnson is that the learned magistrate was guided by the labels as to whether an offence is electable or not or whether it is a misdemeanou
r or not. He has not gone further and considered whether the offences were serious enough to merit trial in the High Court. The word `serious' is used in many of the English authorities that have been cited but that word does not appear in Section 224 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code although it is used in the proviso to section 4 of the Decree where the magistrate has to consider whether serious or difficult questions of law or fact or both are involved in an application made by the DPP.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 Can it be seriously
 argued that the learned Chief Magistrate would have considered the seriousness of the offence only in the event of an application made by the DPP and not otherwise when he himself exercises his discretion under section 224? I am of the view that the lear
ned Chief Magistrate addressed his mind to the seriousness of the questions involved although he has not said}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 so in so ma}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8193516 n}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 y words. It comes to the same thing }{\fs24\expnd0\expndtw2\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 whether }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 he }{\fs24\expnd0\expndtw2\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 used }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 
the word "serious" or not if in fact he took into consideration the gravity, compli
cations and weight of the issues that were involved in the case. It appears to my mind that the learned Chief Magistrate took all relevant factors into consideration when he said in his second ruling that he was "not persuaded having considered the submis
sions by defence counsel" to exercise his discretion under section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Code.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 I have no doubt that the defence submissions would have been as impressive and as comprehensive in the Magistrates' Court as they were before me. Even in
 the learned Chief Magistrate's first }{\fs24\expnd0\expndtw2\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 ruling }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 
was marred by the failure to hear defence counsel as alleged the second ruling was not affected by any such infirmity.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 The English authorities do not seem to be in point in this case. In those cases the issue was serious considering the inadequacy of the punishment that was meted out. That }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317 s}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 
urely cannot be the defence contention in this case. It seems to be that the learned Chief Magistrate was right in not having seen any exceptional circumstances which would h
ave merited a trial in the High Court in this case. Any other decision would also have set an unhealthy precedent which would upset the work of the Magistrates' courts.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 The fact that some of the appellants are highly placed in life does not take the case 
into the serious category. Nor does the fact that in this case it was the Constitution that is alleged to have been burnt elevate it to a case of constitutional importance. All are equal before the law. They should all be tried in the same manner in the s
ame courts.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4143317\charrsid8724184 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 I dismiss the appeals.
\par 
\par (}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid4143317 Appeals dismissed}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8265070\charrsid8724184 )
\par }}