The Court of Appeal has dismissed a prisoner’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to hold an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention.
The prisoner, who is serving an effective eight-year sentence in Midlands Prison, argued that court records used different bill numbers for the indictment and the warrant committing him to prison. He said the indictment was numbered CCDP 002/2016, while the Rule of Court drawn up after sentencing referred to CCDP 001/2016.
The appeal judgment said it was not entirely clear what the prisoner’s complaint was. He did not provide a copy of the indictment, writing to the High Court registrar on 14 May 2021 that he could not send one because of “anonymity reasons and the lack of any independent photocopier”. The judgment said the meaning of that explanation was unclear.
The High Court had recorded that the prisoner pleaded guilty to 16 counts of rape and 16 counts of sexual assault on 25 April and 17 October 2016. It also noted that his claim about the indictment’s administrative number was unsupported by evidence. The High Court said that, even if the discrepancy were established, it was a typographical error that could be corrected under the slip rule. It refused the requested inquiry, finding the application devoid of merit.
The Court of Appeal agreed with that assessment and dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not make a separate finding that the prisoner’s account of the numbering discrepancy was correct; it records the allegation and the absence of supporting evidence. The appeal court’s decision leaves the High Court’s refusal to hold an inquiry in place.