The Attorney General v Hall

Offences may be triable either way even where the accused has no right to elect jury trial. The prosecution may invite the magistrate either to conduct a summary trial or to hold a preliminary inquiry, but the magistrate determines the mode of trial. A voluntary bill of indictment is available only where the offence falls within the statutory definition of an indictable offence, including offences triable only on information and specified section 214 offences. Clear wording in a later Act cannot be used to rewrite that definition in the Criminal Procedure Code. The remedy for any legislative gap lies with Parliament.

The respondent was convicted in the Supreme Court of the Bahamas of people-trafficking and related offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Trafficking in Persons (Prevention and Suppression) Act. The charges had proceeded on a voluntary bill of indictment without a preliminary inquiry. The Court of Appeal held that the offences were triable only summarily and quashed the convictions. The Attorney General appealed to the Privy Council. The central questions were whether the offences were triable either summarily or on information, whether the accused had a right to elect jury trial, and whether the Attorney General could use the voluntary-bill procedure.

Appeal dismissed. The Board advised that the Attorney General’s appeal should be dismissed.

1. The Court of Appeal’s threefold classification of offences was rejected. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, offences fall into four categories: those triable only by judge and jury in the Supreme Court; those triable either way without a right of election; those triable either way with a right of election under section 214 and Schedule 3; and those triable only summarily.
2. The offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Trafficking in Persons (Prevention and Suppression) Act plainly provide for differing penalties on summary conviction and conviction on information. They are therefore category-two offences. The prosecution may seek summary trial or a preliminary inquiry leading to committal, but the magistrate decides the mode of trial and may proceed summarily under section 126.
3. The voluntary-bill power in section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code is expressly limited to an indictable offence. Section 2 defines that expression, subject to section 214, as an offence triable only on information. The definition therefore covers category-one and category-three offences, but not the category-two offences in this case.
4. The later wording of the Trafficking in Persons (Prevention and Suppression) Act confirms the offences’ mode of trial, but cannot supply the context for rewriting the earlier Code’s definition. Reading section 258 as referring to every offence triable on information would require deletion of the word only. That would be legislation, not construction.
5. The respondent’s offences could still have been tried before judge and jury following a preliminary inquiry and committal. The absence of power to prefer a voluntary bill made the particular process invalid. Whether that power should be extended to category-two offences was a matter for Parliament.

1. Privy Council: On [2016] UKPC 28, dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal and advised that the Court of Appeal’s decision stand.
2. Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas: Held that the offences were triable only summarily and quashed the respondent’s convictions. Leave to appeal was granted by a differently constituted court by a majority.
3. Supreme Court of the Bahamas: Convicted the respondent on charges of people trafficking and related offences following proceedings on a voluntary bill of indictment.