|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1933 |
|
|
Joint trials on separate perjury indictments are void; perjury prosecutions must proceed separately unless conspiracy proven.
Criminal procedure — Perjury — Separate indictments for perjury cannot be tried jointly — Joint trial void ab initio — Consent by counsel cannot confer jurisdiction — Perjury is an individual act; joinder requires conspiracy or statutory authority.
|
31 December 1933 |
|
A native compound with restricted user is not a "public place" under the Township Regulations; convictions quashed.
Lusaka Township Regulations 1922 – "public place" – native compound with restricted user not a public place – gambling offence under regulation requires public place – convictions quashed.
|
31 December 1933 |
|
Compelling an accused to give footprints in court produces improperly obtained evidence; conviction based on it was quashed.
Criminal procedure — Compelling accused to produce footprints/fingerprints in court — Evidence improperly obtained — Identification tests in court — Effect on magistrate and assessors — Conviction quashed.
|
31 December 1933 |
|
An immigration officer may not impose non‑statutory employment prohibitions on a temporary visiting permit; such additions are unenforceable.
Immigration law – temporary permits – conditions prescribed by statute/regulation – officer‑added conditions invalid – implied prohibitions from permit purpose.
|
31 December 1933 |
|
Retention occurs when innocent possession becomes dishonest after acquiring knowledge the property was stolen; conviction for that offence upheld.
Criminal law – Receiving v retaining stolen property – "Retaining" requires a change from honest to dishonest possession after acquiring guilty knowledge; "receiving" requires guilty knowledge at time of receipt – Conviction for different offence permitted where proved facts amount to that offence (then s.82 Magistrates' Courts Ordinance).
|
31 December 1933 |
|
Court requires leave to treat a Crown witness as hostile and insists co-accused who incriminates must be open to cross-examination.
Criminal procedure – hostile witness — court’s leave required before Crown may treat witness as hostile; impeachment by reference to preliminary inquiry — required steps; Co-accused testimony — right to cross-examine co-accused who incriminates; Joint accused with separate defences — entitlement to separate representation.
|
31 December 1933 |