THE QUEEN VS IMADEBHOR EGUABOR

Legalpedia Citation: (1962-04) Legalpedia 83630 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Lagos

Mon Apr 30, 1962

Suit Number: SC 33/1962

CORAM

TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

UNSWORTH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

IMADEBHOR EGBABOR

APPELLANTS

THE QUEEN

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—APPEAL

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The accused/appellant was charged with murder, he appealed on the ground of not having understood the language used in Court and

HELD

In the circumstances we consider that the conviction must be set aside, but there was a substantial case against the appellant, and the order we make is that the conviction is quashed and the appellant is to be retried before another Judge of the Western Region High Court.

ISSUES

Not Available

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE COURT IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE INTERPRETATION IS REQUIRED

“The practice usually adopted in the High Courts and Magistrates’ Courts where a witness is giving evidence in a language not understood by the accused, and where no interpretation into a language understood by the accused is being made for the benefit of the Court, is for an interpreter to stand near the accused and tell him what the witness is saying. We consider that this should be the invariable practice where an accused person is not represented by counsel (as we believe it al-ready is), and that it should be followed also where the accused is rep-resented by counsel, unless the accused personally expresses a wish to dis-pense with the translation and the presiding Judge or magistrate considers that the interests of justice will not be prejudiced by such a course.” Per BRETT F.J.

TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL – WHEN SHOULD IT BE ORDERED

“It is only where an issue arises as to whether a confession was made voluntarily that the ex-ceptional procedure of holding a kind of trial within a trial should be adopted, and if an accused person wishes to deny that he made a statement attributed to him, or that his statement was correctly recorded, the time for him to do so is when he comes to make his defence. It follows that he should not be permitted to say anything, whether by way o£ admission or denial, when the statement is tendered by the prosecution, a fortiori he should not be invited to say anything.” Per BRETT F.J.