ROLES AND DUTIES OF REGISTRAR IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

He is to assist a judge in court, and the one in charge of calling of cases to be heard in court.

The registrar of the court is also to read out the allegations against an accused person, and to call the parties present.

ARRAIGNMENT

This is a process whereby the accused shall appear or be brought before the court, and the charge shall be read and explained to him to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar in the language he understands. He shall thereafter be asked to plead to the charge once the court is sure he understands the charge – section 215 of the CPA, section 187(1) of the CPC; and section 211(1) of the ACJL; Kajubo v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 72; Ogunye v. The State (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 604) 548; Kalu v. The State (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 583) 531; Yahaya v. The State (2002) FWCR (Pt 93) P. 2044

VARIOUS OPTIONS OPEN TO AN ACCUSED PERSON ON ARRAIGNMENT

1.      Preliminary objection – He may raise a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court to try him or to a defect in the charge. His objection shall be duly considered and if upheld, he shall be discharged. However, if overruled, then he shall be asked to plead. The accused person may also object to any defect in charge before pleading to it. He may also make any of the pleas as regards to autre fois acquit or autre fois convict. He may also object to the charge on the ground of failure to obtain leave to file the charge or information – Attorney General (Federation) v. Clement Isong (1986) 1 QLRN 75, where it was held that failure to obtain leave can cause the judgment to be set aside. Also, in Abacha v. The State (2002) SC 53 at 76, the court effectively held that failure to obtain leave of the court means that the ruling can be quashed on appeal.

2.      Refusal to plead – He may refuse to plead to the charge. He shall thereafter be asked by the court for his reasons.  Where the court is of the view that those reasons are not valid and the accused still refuses to plead, a plea of “not guilty" shall be entered on his behalf and the trial shall proceed. (Effect of this is that the prosecution must prove the plea of not guilty beyond reasonable doubt) – Gaji v. The State (1975) 5 S.C. 60; section 220 of the CPA; section 188 of the CPC; and section 215 of the ACJL.

3.      Stand mute – He may stand mute and the court shall call evidence (i.e, conduct an investigation) to determine whether his muteness is of malice or due to the visitation of God. If the Court finds that his muteness is of malice, a plea of not guilty shall be entered and the trial shall proceed – Yesufu v. The State ( 1972) 12 S.C. 143, where the accused person stood mute and the court called a prison warden and other inmates to ascertain whether the accused person was under attack, and evidence was given that Yesufu was a notorious criminal who spoke a lot while in the prison yard. This was also the case in The State v. Sawyer C.C.H.C.H/4/73 at page 11. However, if his muteness is of insanity, the trial shall not proceed and the accused shall be ordered to be detained until the pleasure of the Governor is known – R. v. Ogor (1961) 1 All NLR 70, where court read a plea of not guilty by mere looking at the accused, and the appellate court held that the court was wrong in judging the accused person by mere sight. It should however be noted that where the accused is found to be deaf and/or dumb, the court shall further take evidence to determine whether the accused can be made to understand and follow the proceedings. If so, trial shall proceed; if not, the accused shall be remanded in custody or released on bail until the visitation is over, or until the Governor's pleasure is known.

4.      Plea of guilty – The accused may plead guilty to the charge. Such a plea of guilty shall be recorded by the court as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused. If the court is satisfied that by the plea, the accused intends to admit the truth of the essentials of the offence, it may proceed to convict him on the plea – section 215 of the CPA, sections 187 and 161(2) of the CPC, and section 213 of the ACJL; Aremu v. The C.O.P (1980) 2 N.C.R. 315; Ahmed v. The C.O.P (1971) N.M.L.R..409; Osuji v. The Police (1965) L.L.R. 143; Idah v. The Police (1964) NMLR 103.

Elements that must be present before the court can convict on a plea of guilty:

                                           i.            The accused must not have said something contrary to the plea of not guilty

                                         ii.            The plea of the accused must not be ambiguous and must be unequivocal, otherwise the court shall not convict upon it – section 218 of the CPA, section 161(3) of the CPC,  and section 213 of the ACJL; Onuoha v. The Police (1956) N.NLR 96. A plea of guilty is equivocal where the accused states that the offence was committed out of mistake of fact. Thus the plea of guilty must be changed to a plea of not guilty

                                       iii.            Facts stated by the prosecution must support the charge to which the accused has pleaded guilty otherwise the court shall not convict. In Abele v. Tiv N. A. (1965) N.NLR 425, an accused person was arraigned for rioting , and two of the accused persons pleaded guilty, but it was found that the two accused persons were found with sticks as supplied by the prosecutor. On appeal, the court was of the view that although the accused person pleaded guilty, however from the facts given by the prosecution, what was found on them were mere sticks and not supposed dangerous weapons used for the offence.

                                       iv.            Where the plea of guilty is inconsistent with any statement made by the accused either to the police or in court, he shall not be convicted on his plea – R. v. The Middlesex Justice Exparte Rubens (1970) 54 Cr. App. Rep. 183.

                                         v.            Where the offence to which the accused has pleaded can only be constituted by expert evidence, such evidence must be tendered before he can be convicted on his plea – Stevenson v. The Police (1966) 2 All NLR 261, the accused person was charged with being in possession of Indian hemp and remaining in Nigeria illegally, and due to reason that expert evidence was not called, the court quashed the conviction; Ishola v. The State (1969) NMLR 259; Essien v. The King 13 W.A.C.A 6.

                                       vi.            Where the offence charged is a capital offence, a plea of not guilty shall be recorded notwithstanding a plea of guilty by the accused – Sanmabow v. The State (1967) N.M.L.R 314; section 187(2) of the CPC, and section 213(2) of the ACJL. A plea of guilty may be withdrawn with the leave of court at any time before conviction but not after – R. v.  The Guest (1964) 3 All E.R. 38, (1964) 1 W.L.R. 1273.

5.      Plea of not guilty – The accused may make a plea of not guilty in which case he shall be deemed to have put himself upon his trial – section 217 of the CPA, sections 188 & 189 of the CPC, and section 212 of the ACJL.

However, an accused may plead ‘not guilty’ to the offence charged but ‘guilty’ to another offence. Where the court can convict of the other offence, it may with the consent of the prosecution accept this plea and may proceed to convict the accused on it. If the court rejects the plea and proceeds to try the accused on the charge against him, but found him not guilty of that charge, it cannot convict him of that charge to which he has pleaded guilty – R. v. Kelly ( 1965) 9 Cr. App. Rep. 352; Wilson v. R. (1959) 4 F.S.C. 175, where the accused was convicted on rape and indecent assault and this was held to be wrong.

6.      Plea of not guilty by reason of insanity – The accused may plead not guilty by reason of insanity and the court shall proceed with trial and determine:

                                                     i.               whether the accused did commit the offence; and

                                                   ii.               whether he was insane at the time of committing the offence. If the accused is found not to have committed the offence, he shall be discharged and the court shall not decide the issue of insanity.

If he is found to have committed the offence and to be insane at the time of committing it, he shall be remanded in prison custody until the Governor's pleasure is known – sections 223 – 225 of the CPA, sections 320 – 322 of the CPC, and sections 217 – 219 of the ACJL; R. v. Ogor (1961) 1 All NLR 70.

7.      Plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict – This is also known as ‘bar plea’. The accused may make a special plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict which has been provided for in section 36(9) of the Constitution that: "No person who shows that he has been tried by a competent court for a Criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a Criminal offence. having the same ingredients as that offence, save upon the order of a superior court". Also, in section 221 of the CPA, section 223 of the CPC, and sections 173 & 216(1)(a) of the ACJL. The issue of this special plea shall be tried by the court, and if found proved, the accused shall be discharged. If found not proved, the accused shall be asked to enter a plea and the court shall proceed with the trial. The doctrine of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict applies whether the previous acquittal or conviction is by a local court or foreign court – Treacy v. The Director of Public Prosecution 55 Cr. App. Rep. 113. However where an accused was absent and takes no part whatsoever in the foreign proceedings and he does not run the risk of prison or fine, nor exposed to any true danger or evil or jeopardy in respect of the foreign conviction, he cannot succeed on the plea of autrefois convict.

Elements of the special plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict:

a.    That the accused had previously been tried on a Criminal charge – R. v. Jinadu 12 W.A.C.A. 368; The Police v. Johnson (1959) L.L.R. 55.

b.   That the trial had taken place before a court of competent jurisdiction – R. versus Jinadu (supra); Umeze v. The State (1973) S.C. 22 1.

c.    That the trial ended with an acquittal or a conviction. (Thus, where trial was terminated by nolle prosequi, this plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict cannot be sustained.)

d.         That the Criminal charge for which the accused was tried was the same as the new charge against him, or that the new charge is one in respect of which the accused could have been convicted at the former trial although not charged with it – R. v. Noku 6 W.A.C.A. 203; R. v. Edu 14 W.A.C.A. 163; The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)  v. Connelly (1964) 48 Cr. App. Rep. 183. "

Making and recording of plea:

Plea must be made by the accused and not by his counsel, unless the presence of the accused at the trial could be dispensed with – R. v. Pepple and Another  (1949) 12 W.A.C.A. 441. The plea must be recorded by the court before the trial can proceed – Sanmabo v. The State (1967) NNLR 314.

When the accused is charged with more than one offence, a plea must be obtained and recorded in respect of each offence – The Police v. Rosseck (1958) L.L.R. 73.

A valid arraignment in law would consist of the following –

1.      That the accused person who is to be tried should be physically present before the trial court unfettered;

2.      That the charge preferred against him shall be read and explained to him in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the judge by the registrar of the court;

3.      That the accused shall then be called upon to plead instantly to the charge; and

4.      That the plea of the accused shall also be instantly recorded by the judge.

The above requirements must co-exist and failure to comply with them will render the whole trial a nullity – Lufadeju v. Johnson (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1037) 538 SC; Amanchukwu v. F.R.N (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 1 CA; Solala v. State (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 937) 460 SC; Chukwu v. State (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 908) 520, CA; Amala v. State (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) 520, SC; Ezeze v. State (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 894), CA; Umuolo v. State (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 808) 493, CA; Okeke v. State (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 25, SC.

The requirements are also mandatory and not directory which is supported by section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution. Non-compliance with the requirements will warrant an order of re-trial as the trial will be vitiated and rendered a nullity – Dible v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1038) 30 SC.

However, the presence of an accused person can be dispensed with if the punishment that the offence carries does not exceed N100 or more than six months and if the accused is of unsound mind and prone to disturbing court proceedings – Ezeze v. State (supra).

The law requires that there where an accused does not understand a language in the course of his trial or proceedings, he shall be given a right to an adequate interpreter. Where an accused is represented by a counsel, and no objection is raised as to the failure of an interpreter during the trial or proceedings, it will not affect the trial or judgment of the court. But, it will vitiate the trial or judgment where the accused was not represented by a counsel and such failure of an interpreter has led to miscarriage of justice, and prejudiced the accused person also. – Udosen v. State (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1023) 125 SC.

The general principle of law is that an offence shall be tried by a court having jurisdiction in the division or district where the offence was committed.

The exception to the above general principle is where such trial would not lead to miscarriage of justice or untold hardship on the part of the accused – Odock v. State (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 369 CA

Where there are more than one accused person in a criminal trial, their pleas must be individually and separately taken – Eyisi v. The State (2000) 12 SC (Part 1) 24 at 33.

However, by virtue of section 187(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, if an accused person pleads guilty to a charge, the plea shall be recorded and he may in the discretion of the court, be convicted thereon. But, where the offence is punishable with death, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the accused person – Chukwu v. State (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 335) 640 SC; Amanchukwu v. F. R. N (supra). ( click on any picture or link at the right or left hand side for more insight, please follow us twitter or like our page on facebook)