Case Number

HCJ 268/52, HCJ 47/53

Date Decided

5-31-1953

Decision Type

Original

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Under section 18 of the Police Ordinance the Inspector-General may constitute Courts of Discipline to try police officers charged with disciplinary offences, the section prescribing the offences which may be the subject of such charges. One of those offences is thus described (in section 18(1)(i)): "any offence contrary to the good order and discipline of the Force.. ." The High Commissioner in Council was empowered by section 50(1)(e) to make rules "for the definition of offences to the prejudice of good order and discipline", and under that power made the Police (Disciplinary Offences) (Definition) Rules, 1941. Offence No. 23 of those Rules creates the offence of "knowing where any offender is to be found, failing to report the same or to exert himself to make the offender amenable to law" and Offence No. 47 provides that a police officer is liable to punishment for "acting in a disorderly manner or in any manner likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the Force."

The petitioner, Sapoznikov, was convicted by a Court of Discipline of three offences "contrary to the good order and discipline of the Force", one based on Offence No. 23 and two on Offence No. 47, in that, knowing of the whereabouts of an offender who had brought goods into the country without an import license in contravention of the Customs Ordinance, he did not report thereon to the proper authorities. He was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment, and later dismissed from the service.

The petitioner, Mimran, was charged before a Court of Discipline with "conduct likely to cause injury to the reputation of the Force", in that he had had intercourse with a woman against her will in a police car of which he was the driver. His trial was not yet completed.

The petitioners contended that since the offences with which they were charged were offences under the criminal law, they could not be tried in a disciplinary court.

Held: (1) That the Court of Discipline has no jurisdiction to try the charge against Mimran;

(2) By Silberg and Sussman JJ. (Olshan J. dissenting) that the Court of Discipline had jurisdiction to try only that charge against Sapoznikov which was based on Offence No. 23, but not those based on Offence No. 47.

Keywords

Administrative Law -- Judicial review, Constitutional Law -- Prisoners’ Rights, Criminal Law -- Criminal Procedure

Download

Share

COinS