666
21. Section 21 repeals section 112 of the principal Ordinance and substitutes a new section. The prin- cipal changes are as follows:-
(a) Sub-section (2) of the new section provides
that every person who has applied for a case stated or for a certificate of leave to appeal, and every person who has applied for a review under section 96 of the principal Ordinance, shall, if he is in custody, be treated pending the appeal or review as if he were a person awaiting trial.
(b) Sub-section (3) provides that the time during which an appellant is admitted to bail, or is treated in prison as an appellant, pending the appeal, shall not count as part of his sentence. This sub-section is taken from section 14 (3) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, 7 Edw. 7, c. 23.
(c) Sub-section (4) gives to a magistrate in the case of a review similar powers to those given to the judges and to the Full Court in the case of an appeal, and applies sub-section (3) to the ease of a review.
22. Section 22 inserts in the principal Ordinance a new section 113A which empowers the Full Court to rehear a case de novo if any step in an appeal is rendered impossible by the death, absence or incapacity of the magistrate whose decision is appealed against.
23. Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, inter alia makes it an offence for a suspected person or reputed thief frequenting certain specified places with intent to commit felony. This gave rise in practice to three difficulties. In the first place it was held by the Court of Exchequer in two cases that on the wording of the section in question it had to be proved that the frequent- ing was of some street leading to a river or place of public resort or a street adjacent to a place of public resort, and in one of these cases a charge of frequenting Regent Street with intent to commit a felony failed on this ground. There was a contrary decision by the Court of Queen's Bench. In the second place, it was argued that it was necessary to prove an overt act or some attempt to commit a felony. Both these difficul- fies were removed by section 15 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871. In the third place, as was held in R. v. Clark (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 92, the finding of a man in a street upon one occasion does not amount to fre- quenting. This difficulty was met by section 7 of the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, which extended the provi- sions of the Vagrancy Act to cases of loitering in one of the place referred to with the intent specified. Section 23 of this Ordinance inserts in the Magistrates Ordi- nance, 1890, a new section 127 which incorporates the provisions of the Acts of 1871 and 1891.
24. Section 24 amends the form of caution in Form No. 70 in the First Schedule to the principal Ordi- nance in order to make it agree with the provisions of section 73 of that Ordinance.
25. Section 25 makes an amendment in the Third Schedule which is explained in paragraph 9 above.
26. There is still much in the Magistrates Ordi- nance, 1890, which calls for examination and amend- ment, e.g., the curious duplication between sections 11 and 14. Re-arrangement would shorten and simplify the Ordinance considerably. This, however, would have involved the expenditure of more time than was available.
16th August, 1927.
J. H. KEMP,
Attorney General.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.