In the realm of criminal law, objections against charges or information play a critical role in ensuring that justice is served and the accused’s rights are protected. When an accused person believes that a charge or information is legally flawed, it is their right to raise objections before entering a plea. This article delves into the legal framework surrounding objections against charges or information, emphasizing the importance of addressing these objections to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings.
Objections Before Pleading
s. 275(1), CPC stipulates that if an objection is raised against a charge in lower courts or information in the High Court before the accused is called upon to enter a plea, the court must address the objection before proceeding with the plea. This provision is crucial to ensuring that legal issues are resolved at the outset, preventing the accused from entering a plea in a potentially flawed case.
Objections can take various forms, such as challenges based on double jeopardy, which arises when an accused is charged with an offense for which they have previously been tried and acquitted. Additionally, objections can be raised if the charge sheet or information does not disclose an offense in law, as exemplified in the case of ESL v R High Court at Kakamega Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2012).
Bail Pending Determination of Objection
In cases where objections are raised against the charge or information, the court may find it necessary to extend the summons and, in appropriate situations, release the accused on bail pending the determination of the objection. This approach ensures that the accused’s liberty is not unduly restricted while the legal issues are resolved. If the objection is ultimately dismissed, the accused will be required to enter a plea as the case proceeds.
Substance Over Technicalities
The legal system places a strong emphasis on substantive justice rather than mere technicalities. While it is essential that charges or information are legally sound, courts should not overly rely on technical defects if they do not undermine substantive justice. A case in point is the decision in Isaac Nyoro Kimita v R (Court of Appeal at Nairobi Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 2009).
In this case, the court declined to hold that a defective charge rendered the trial unconstitutional. The charge was considered defective because it accused several individuals of “jointly” defiling a girl, an offense that was impossible in the eyes of the law. However, the accused had not been disadvantaged by this defect, and substantive justice was not compromised. Therefore, the trial proceeded without deeming it unconstitutional.
Conclusion
Objections against charges or information are a fundamental component of the criminal justice system, allowing accused persons to challenge charges that they believe are legally flawed. The legal framework, as outlined in section 275(1) of the CPC, ensures that these objections are addressed before the accused is required to enter a plea.
Courts must strike a balance between addressing valid objections and upholding the principles of substantive justice. While technical defects in charges or information are important, they should not overshadow the core goal of delivering justice. By considering objections in a fair and balanced manner, the legal system can maintain the integrity of criminal proceedings while safeguarding the rights and interests of all parties involved.
