Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Published date | 01 August 2001 |
| Date | 01 August 2001 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830106500406 |
| Author | J.A. Coutts |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial Committee
of
the Privy
Council
Failure
of
Magistrate
to Give
Reasons
for
Decision
Cedeno
v
Logan
[2001] I WLR 86
The
owner
of a car
and
his passenger stopped
the
car
and
crossed
the
road. Looking back,
the
owner
saw
two
men
get
into
the
car. He re-
crossed
the
road
and
spoke
to
the
man
in
the
driver's seat for a
minute,
but, seeing (as he
thought)
that
the
driver
had
a
weapon
at his side,
he
allowed
him
to drive away. Later, seeing
the
man
in
the
street,
he
called
the
police,
who
took
him
around
the
streets until he identified
the
defendant
in this case as
the
driver
who
had
stolen his car. The defen-
dant
was convicted of larceny in
the
magistrate's court
and
sentenced
to
(the
maximum)
two
years' imprisonment. He appealed to
the
Court
of
Appeal of Trinidad
and
Tobago,
where
he took no objection
to
the
fact
that
the
magistrate
had
given no reasons for his decision,
but
attacked
the
evidence of his identification as being inadequate, in
the
light of
the
English authorities,
which
he
claimed, applied
under
local law. The
Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal,
on
the
ground
that
that
there
was
ample
evidence
that
the
identification was satisfactory
and
it increased
his
sentence
to five years' imprisonment. Neither
the
court
nor
either
of
the
parties referred to
the
absence of reasons
which
the
magistrate
ought
to
have
given. He was given leave by
the
Privy Council to appeal
to
it,
both
against conviction
and
sentence.
The
Summary
Courts Act 1990 (of Trinidad
and
Tobago) provides, by
s. 170A,
that
where
notice of appeal
has
been
given in accordance
with
s. 130
the
magistrate
or
justice should
within
60 days of
the
giving of
the
notice of appeal
draw
up
and
sign a
statement
of
the
reasons for his
dedsion
and
the
parties shall be entitled,
on
application to
the
clerk, to
acopy of
the
statement.
Before
the
Privy Council,
the
question of
the
increase of sentence was
not
an
issue, as it was accepted
that
the
Court of Appeal, in its effort to
accept
the
magistrate's wish to impose
the
maximum
sentence
had
simply
made
amistake of fact in believing
that
the
maximum
had
been
increased to five years (in
the
place of
the
magistrate's (correct)
two
years. This
meant
that
there
was
only
one
issue of substance before
the
Board (in addition to
the
question of costs).
The
effect
of the
absence
of
reasons
The appellant
argued
that
where
amagistrate is
mandated
by
statute
to
hold atrial
which
must
end
in a
dedsion
accompanied by reasons, his
jurisdiction was limited to holding such a trial
and
that
he
had
no
jurisdiction to hold a trial
which
did
not
end
in
that
way. He, therefore,
contended
that
both
the
trial
and
the
decision
were
anullity. The
prosecution
argued
that
afailure by
the
magistrate to carry
out
one
andllary
part
of his
duty
did
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
whole
trial,
331
To continue reading
Request your trial