-10-
{
A copy was sent to me at my registered place of business. The depositions
have not been certified
G
matter is not properly before the Court.
The indictment has not stated any section of the law under which accused
is charged. There is no definition in the law of Tortola. This is a lacuna in
the lawi
Ask that Indictment be quashedi
Mr. Archibald:
Re-open.
Court: The section, says that Court shall not be open
Cap. 142 Sec, 23 (G).
K
it deals with trial on
Magistrate was not
The citation Arch 39 Ed. para. 341. Not relevant
indictment. Magistrate did not have to give a reason.
obliged to inform accused of his right to call witness in his defencei
1.
Sec. 2 of Cap. 54 does not create an offence. We have inherited the
Common law.
5
10
010
Refer to Cap. 14 Sec. 2.
15
Queen v Roy Pemberton No. 1/1974 in the State of St. Christopher.
Indictment No. 3/1971
Queen v. George Chalwell in this jurisdiction.
Mr. Foster
As long as Magistrate elects to have a closed Court he is bound by Sec. 41 and
therefore he cannot function, so he cant hold the enquiry. Therefore he must
have an open Court.
20
Court Learned Counsel for the Crown has dealt adequately in my opinion with all
the submission on the motion to quash. I hold that the learned Magistrate
卓
exercised his discretion to keep the court "closed" very properly and had in
mind the interest of the accused.
There is nothing to establish that any person other than the proper
officers of the court were present at the enquiry and I hold that a proper interpretation of Sec. 41 of Cap 45 contemplates that the proper officers of
the Court cannot be excluded.
25
30
On the question of the service of the indictment øven accepting learned
Counsel's word that it was served at his business address. I hold that this irregularity would be a proper ground for an adjournment of the trial, but not to/
quasb.
赢
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.