VISIT TO LOCUS-IN-QUO
This is provided for under section 207(1) of the CPA; section 243 of the CPC; and section 205 of
the ACJL.
Section 207(1) of
the CPC provides
thus –
“Where it appears to the court that in the interest of
justice, the court should have a view of any place, person or thing connected
with the case the court may, where the view relates to a place, either adjourn
the court to that place and their continue the proceedings or adjourn the case
and proceed to view the place, person, or thing concerned.”
The purpose of locus-in-quo is to visit the scene of
the crime or where issues that led to the case before the court arose in order to
inspect things. It is also for determination of the case before the court in
the interest of justice. The
law permits the court to carry out an inspection of the locus-in-quo.
PROCEDURE
There are two ways by which the locus-in-quo may be inspected, which are –
1.
The
court may adjourn to the locus and continue the proceedings there until it
reconvenes in the court. In Commissioner of Police v. Olaopa (1959)
WRNLR 22, the accused was charged with malicious damage to property. At
the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, the court moved to the locus to view
the place where the offence was alleged to have been committed. At the locus,
certain witnesses showed certain spots. The proceedings at the locus were
recorded. Counsels were invited to question the witnesses, but they did not do
so. After viewing the locus, the court adjourned back to its original place of
sitting, the trial continued and the accused was convicted. On appeal against
conviction, it was argued that since the witnesses were not cross-examined when
the court reconvened at its original place of sitting, the proper procedure was
not followed. The court held that the procedure adopted in the instant case was
to be distinguished from that adopted in R v. Dogbe 12 WACA 184, where the
court moved to the locus; therefore the witnesses were not required to be
cross-examined again in court. Thus the appeal was dismissed.
2.
The
court may make an inspection of the locus, and evidence of what transpired at
the locus are subsequently given in court afterwards. This procedure was laid
down in R v. Dogbe (supra). In Aremu v. Attorney-General of Western Nigeria
(1967) NMLR 62, the accused was charged with murder. After the close of
the defence case, the trial judge visited the place where the identification
parade was conducted. The trial judge made notes of what transpired at the
locus. When the court reconvened, the witnesses were not called upon to give
their evidence on oath. On appeal against conviction, it was held that in
accordance with the procedure laid down in R. v. Dogbe (supra), the witnesses
ought to have been put in the witness box to state what transpired at the locus.
However, as the irregularity did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, the
appeal was dismissed.
It should be noted that if the proper procedure is not
followed in viewing the locus, and as a result, the accused suffered injustice,
a conviction would be set aside – Arutu v. R 4 FSC 66. But
non-compliance with the rules will not however render a trial null and void, if
it led to no substantial miscarriage of justice – C.O.P v. Olaopa & Ors. (1959)
WRNLR 22; Bello & Ors. v. C.O.P (1959) WRNLR 124; Alamu & Ors. v. C.O.P
(1959) WRNLR 103.
Section 207(2) of
the CPA states
that “the accused shall be present at the view”. This is also made available in
section 243 of the CPC; and proviso (ii) to section 76 of the Evidence
Act. Thus, the accused person must be present at the locus. If an
inspection of the locus is undertaken, and the accused is absent, this will be
an irregularity. If the accused person suffered miscarriage of justice as a
result of the irregularity, an appeal court will set aside a conviction. In Adunfe
v. Inpector General of Police 2 FSC 21, one hundred and twenty-five
(125) accused persons were charged with rioting. The magistrate adjourned the
trial and proceeded to view the locus in the absence of the accused. The
accused persons were convicted. On appeal against conviction, the appellate
court held that it was clearly irregular for the trial magistrate to view the
locus in the absence of the accused. However, since the accused did not suffer
any injustice as a result of the irregularity, the appeal was dismissed.
A visit to the locus-in-quo
may be done or made at anytime before judgment is delivered – Aturu
v. The Queen (1959) 4 FSC 66; Ejidike & Ors. V. The Christopher Obiora
(1951) 13 WACA 270. However, the courts have held that it is better for
trial judges to visit the locus as early as possible, and preferably in the
course of the evidence for the prosecution – Aremu v. Attorney-General Western
Nigeria (supra).
No comments:
Post a Comment