Wilson J:

In these cases the accused persons were charged that they were found out of doors during curfew hours between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. They all pleaded guilty and said that they had gone to the pictures.They were tried by a Magistrate.It has been argued before me that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try these cases which have come before me in revision. I have been referred to reg. 12 of the Emergency Regulations, 1951 which gives power to a Sessions Court, with one limitation, to try any offence against the Regulations but limits the power of sentence to one of five years' imprisonment, or a fine of $5,000, or to both such imprisonment and fine.It has been argued that without this regulation even a Sessions Court could not try a case under the Emergency Regulations as it is said that under the Courts Ordinance it cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment and a fine. I have also been referred to reg. 11 which states that a person guilty of an offence against the Regulations shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

The powers of a Magistrate's Court under s. 85 of the Courts Ordinance are confined to trying offences in which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed three years or which are punishable with fine only.It has been argued that that section does not permit a Magistrate to try a case where a sentence of three years' imprisonment and a fine can be imposed.Section 63 of the Courts Ordinance, which deals with the powers of a Sessions Court, relates to offences where imprisonment does not exceed seven years or which are punishable with fine only.Section 64 of the Courts Ordinance, however, allows a Sessions Court to pass any sentence allowed by law not exceeding : (a) three years' imprisonment of either description; (b) a fine of four thousand dollars; (c) whipping up to twelve strokes; or (d) any sentence combining any of the sentences aforesaid.Obviously, a Sessions Court, in spite of the wording of s. 63 of the Courts Ordinance, can pass a sentence of imprisonment and a fine.Section 87 of the Courts Ordinance is in the same terms as s. 63 of the Courts Ordinance and clearly allows a First Class Magistrate to pass a sentence both of imprisonment and a fine.

In these circumstances, I hold that a First Class Magistrate has jurisdiction to try a case for an offence under the Emergency Regulations, 1951.

My attention has also been drawn to reg. 20A of the Emergency (Criminal Trials) Regulations, 1948.It is sufficient to say that, in my opinion, the meaning of that section is that the High Commissioner may authorise, in writing, any Magistrate to hold a Court to try certain cases as specified in the schedule thereto which are normally outside his territorial jurisdiction.

I have come to the conclusion that this regulation does not affect the right of a Magistrate to try such Emergency cases as are within his jurisdiction in the area where he normally holds jurisdiction.

All the accused in these cases were sentenced to a fine of $75 each, with the exception of one who was fined $10. I am told, and it has not been contradicted by the Deputy Public Prosecutor that the circumstances were that the labourers on one estate went during curfew hours to another estate to see a private cinema show given by the management of that estate. I have, in fact, been told that they were invited.In order, however, to get from one estate to the other estate they had to pass through a very short part of a curfew area.It is to be noted that all these cases arose out of the same incident and, in all, there were 29 offenders.It is not suggested that these persons had any connection with the terrorists or were doing anything to assist the terrorists.While I agree that a breach of curfew regulations would normally deserve a severe penalty I feel that, in all the circumstances of these cases, a fine of $30 would have been suff