Director of Public Prosecutions v Adams

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 23 December 1965
• Docket Number: No. 57 of 1965
• Date: 23 December 1965
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)

Divisional Court

Douglas, C.J.; Hanschell, J.

No. 57 of 1965

Director of Public Prosecutions

and

Adams

O.M Browne and C.O. Tulloch for the appellant.

H.B. St. John and J.G.M. Adams for the respondent.

Practice and procedure - Charge of publishing statement reflecting on character of Speaker of House of Assembly in discharge of his duty as such — Application for further particulars — Appellant declining to provide further information — Whether magistrate justified in dismissing charge.

Douglas, C.J.

1 delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the dismissal by the magistrate sitting at District “F” court of an information against the respondent. The respondent was charged with publishing a statement reflecting on the character of the Speaker of the General Assembly in the discharge of his duty as such, contrary to s. 35 (1) (a) of the Legislature ( Privileges, Immunities and Power) Act, 1963 (B). The particulars set out in the information are these: “At a public meeting held at Mayers Corner, in the parish of Saint Joseph, on the 4th day of October, 1964, the accused published a statement suggesting that the Speaker of the General Assembly of the Island took sides, and was not impartial in the discharge of the duties of his office as Speaker.”

2 The respondent, through counsel, asked for information in respect of the charge and the learned magistrate directed that the respondent be given reasonable information in accordance with rule 9 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts ( Criminal Procedure) Rules, 1958 (B) as to the manner of publication and the words used. The prosecution then supplied the following particulars:

• (a) “Oral

• (b) Allegations that the Speaker of the General Assembly of the Island took sides, and was not impartial in the discharge of the duties of his office as Speaker.”

3 The learned magistrate was not satisfied that his direction had been complied with and ruled that the respondent would not be called upon to plead until the prosecution gave particulars of the words alleged to have been used by the respondent. The magistrate adjourned the proceedings for this to be done. The prosecution declined to give the particulars required and the magistrate dismissed the information. Subsection (1) of s. 35 of the Legislature ( Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, 1963 (B) provides:

“Any person who publishes any statement, whether in writing or otherwise … which reflects on the character of … the Speaker … in the discharge of his duty as such … is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction thereof by a magistrate's court to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment.

4 Rule 9 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts ( Criminal Procedure) Rules, 1958 (B), provides:

“Every information … shall be sufficient if it describes the specific offence with which the accused is charged … in ordinary language avoiding as far as possible the use of technical terms and without necessarily stating all the elements of the offence, and gives such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information of the nature of the charge.”

5 The above Rule reproduces in terms the provisions of Rule 77 of the Magistrates' Court Rules, 1952, of the United Kingdom, which replaced a corresponding enactment in...