Back
1944 Supreme(SC) 12
Privy Council At Palestine
Sir Madhavan Nair, Lord Thankerton, Justice Viscount Maugham, JJ.
Add Muhammed El Dabbah -Appellant
Versus
Attorney General of Palestine -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 66 of 1943
Decided On : 18-05-1944
Burehells, Piper, Piper Smilh, Kenclm Preedy, John Bassett, Gilbert Beyfus
Emergency defence regulations can override existing court composition laws. Prosecutors maintain discretion over which witnesses to call, regardless of whether they are listed on the indictment. Premeditation in murder may be established through legitimate inferences from the accused's conduct and surrounding circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939 - Section 1 - Defence (Judicial) Regulations, 1942 - Regulation 3 - Courts Ordinance, 1940 - Section 10 - Constitution of Criminal Court - Validity of a trial conducted by a single judge where the law previously required three - Regulation allowing the presiding judge to determine court composition is an exercise of executive discretion and not an unauthorized delegation of power - Defence regulations prevail over inconsistent prior enactments - Administrative directions regarding court composition do not require publication in the official Gazette to be effective.
(B) Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936 - Sections 214 and 216 - Premeditation - Requirements for proving premeditation include resolution to kill, killing in cold blood without provocation, and preparation - Such elements can be established through legitimate inferences from circumstances and conduct of the accused - Express findings of the trial judge on these elements satisfy legal requirements.
(C) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution's discretion to call witnesses - No legal obligation for the prosecution to tender for cross-examination witnesses whose names appear on the information but who were not called to testify - The prosecutor retains discretion to determine material witnesses, provided there is no oblique motive.
Facts of the case:
An appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a single judge. The appellant challenged the constitution of the court, arguing that a three-judge panel was required. Further challenges were raised regarding alterations in the final judgment, the sufficiency of evidence for premeditation, and the prosecution's failure to tender certain witnesses for cross-examination.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the regulation allowing a single judge to preside was valid and prevailed over the previous ordinance. The administrative direction to sit alone did not require Gazette publication. The alterations to the judgment were not substantial. Premeditation was sufficiently proven by inference from the facts. The prosecution is not legally bound to call all witnesses listed on the indictment.
Issues: Whether the trial court was validly constituted by a single judge; whether the prosecution is obligated to tender all witnesses listed on the information for cross-examination; and whether the findings of premeditation were sufficiently supported by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Defence regulations made under emergency powers can override existing court ordinances. The determination of court composition by a presiding judge is an administrative function, not a legislative order requiring publication. Premeditation in murder can be inferred from the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances. The prosecutor has the discretion to decide which witnesses are material to the case.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- murder
-
offences against the person
-
administrative law
-
delegated legislation
- ultra vires
-
delegated legislation
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
- constitution of courts
-
evidence
- witness examination
-
criminal procedure
Lord Thankerton:-
On 24th March 1943, the Chief Justice of Palestine, sitting alone as the Court of Criminal Assize at Haifa, convicted the appellant of murder contrary to S. 214 (b), Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, and sentenced him to death. An appeal by the appellant was dismissed on 17th April 1943, by the Supreme Court of Palestine, sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the appellant, by special leave, now appeals against that judgment. Mr. Beyfus, in his full and able argument on behalf of the appellant, conveniently submitted his contentions under two heads, viz., those which challenged the constitution of the Court of Criminal Assize by which the appellant was tried, and those which alleged grave impropriety in the course of the trial. As regards the constitution of the trial Court, the Chief Justice sat alone by virtue of Regulation No. 8 of the Palestine Defence (Judicial) (Regulations (No. 2), 1942, which provided as follows:
"3. Whenever the Chief Justice considers it expedient so to do he may, either generally or for the hearing of any particular case, direct that the Court of Criminal Assize shall consist of the Chief Justice or a British puisne judge, sitting alone, or with any one or more judge or judges of the Supreme Court, or with a president, or relieving president, or any one or more Palestinian judge or judges, of the District Court."
At the date of making these regulations, the constitution of the Court of Criminal Assize was prescribed by S. 10, Courts Ordinance, 1940 (no. 31 of 1940), under which, in the absence of any application by the accused, such Court must consist of three judges. No such application was made by the present appellant. Mr. Beyfus submitted that the Court of Criminal Assize was not validly constituted on three grounds, viz., (a) that regulation No. 8. already referred to which was made by the High Commissioner under the powers vested in him by Art. 8 of the Emergency Powers (Colonial Defence) Order in Council 1939, and the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, was not within the powers thus vested in him, and was therefore ultra vires of the High Commissioner; (b) that, assuming that regulation No. 3 was intra vires of the High Commissioner, any direction made by the Chief Justice under it fell to be made by the Chief Justice himself, and there was no such direction in the present case, and (c) that, in any event, such a direction was an order within the meaning of S. 7, Palestine Interpretation-Ordinance, 1933 (no. 69 of 1938), which was applied to the Defence (Judicial) Regulations, 1942, by regulation No. 9 thereof, and which required publication in the Gazette before such an order could have the force of law. These submissions were raised for the first time before this Board.
(a) It is unnecessary to refer to the Order in Council of 1939 in detail; it is sufficient to state that its effect was to extend the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, to Palestine, and, for present purposes, that the parts of
S. 1 of the Act which are material may be read as originally enacted, with the substitution of the High Commissioner for His Majesty in Council. The material parts of S. l are as follows:
"1.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, His Majesty may by Order in Council make such Regulations (in this Act referred to as 'Defence Regulations') as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community."
(2) .........
(3) Defence Regulations may provide for empowering such authorities, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the Regulations to make orders, rules and byelaws for any of the purposes for which such Regulations are authorised by this Act to be made, and may contain such incidental and supplementary provisions, as appear to
