Back
1919 Supreme(SC) 48
Privy Council
Atkinson, Lords Buckmaster , Justice Viscount Haldane, JJ.
Bugga and others -Appellant
Versus
Emperor -Resopndent
Decided On : 23-07-1919
India Office, Nevil, Rogers , Messrs Barrow, Crown, E. Richards, B. Dube, J. Simon
Leave to appeal in criminal cases may be granted to prevent a miscarriage of fundamental justice, particularly when serious questions arise regarding jurisdiction (coram non judice) or the scope and retrospective application of governing ordinances.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Law - Jurisdiction - Leave to appeal - Miscarriage of justice - The Board may advise interference in criminal cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice based on fundamental principles of justice, including instances where proceedings are coram non judice.
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Scope of Ordinances - Whether a subsequent Ordinance extends the scope of a preceding one, and whether the initial Ordinance is limited to cases where the defendant is apprehended in flagrante delicto.
(C) Legal Principles - Retrospective action and allegiance - Questions regarding the retrospective application of law and the issue of allegiance are valid points for argument upon appeal.
Facts of the case:
Appellants sought leave to appeal a criminal matter, contending that the proceedings were coram non judice and raising questions regarding the interpretation and scope of two Ordinances, as well as the retrospective application of law and the issue of allegiance.
Findings of Court:
There are serious points to be argued regarding whether the second Ordinance extended the scope of the first, and whether the first Ordinance was limited to cases of apprehension in flagrante delicto.
Issues: Whether the case involves a miscarriage of fundamental principles of justice warranting interference; whether the proceedings were coram non judice; and the legal scope and retrospective nature of the relevant Ordinances.
Ratio Decidendi: Leave to appeal is granted when there is a potential miscarriage of fundamental principles of justice, specifically where there are serious arguments concerning the jurisdiction of the court and the interpretation of the governing statutory ordinances.
Result: Leave granted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
appeals
- leave to appeal
-
appeals
-
criminal law
-
jurisdiction
- coram non judice
-
jurisdiction
-
statutory interpretation
- retrospective action
Viscount Haldane:-
We think under the circumstances it is right that there should be leave to appeal. This Board, as we have often said, is not a Court of Criminal Appeal, but there is a class of cases which is generally defined as the class of cases which falls within the category of what the Board laid down in Dillet., In re (1) in which they do advise the Sovereign to interfere where there has been a miscarriage of justice referred for its meaning to the fundamental principles of justice, for instance, if there has been anything coram non judice,' that is a case in point. If the argument that has been addressed to us here is right, the case has been coram non judice. There is one point, at any rate, on which we think that there is a serious point to argue, without expressing any opinion upon it, and that is that the second Ordinance has not extended the scope of the first Ordinance, and that the first Ordinance is limited to cases where the defendant is taken in flagrante delicto. There are other points besides that; there is the question of whether this could have retrospective action; that is quite another point. Then there is the question as to allegiance, to which reference has been made. I do not say whether we should have given leave to appeal on these points as regards the allegiance; I think we should have been reluctant to do so; but it must be open to the appellants when they come here to argue these points. We do not express any opinion except that we think that within the principles of Dillet's case. [1887] 12 A.C. 459 = 56 L.T. 615 = 16 Cox. C.C. 241 = 36 W. R. 81. We are bound to advise the Sovereign that there should be a scrutiny of what has happened with a view to ascertaining whether there has been a miscarriage of fundamental principles of justice.
Leave granted. .
