R v Defendants

This case involved the review of a ruling by the Chief Magistrate of St Helena, which dismissed charges against the defendants under section 12A of the Theft Act 1968, questioning its applicability to St Helena.

TLDR:

• Defendants were charged under section 12A of the Theft Act 1968.
• The Chief Magistrate ruled that sections 12 and 12A of the Theft Act 1968 do not apply to St Helena.
• The Supreme Court reviewed the ruling and upheld the Chief Magistrate's decision.
• The court found that the offences under the Theft Act 1968 are inconsistent with local St Helena legislation.

The defendants were charged with allowing themselves to be carried in a vehicle taken without the owner's consent, causing damage, under section 12A of the Theft Act 1968. The Chief Magistrate ruled that neither section 12 nor section 12A of the Theft Act 1968 applied to St Helena, leading to the dismissal of the charges.

The Chief Magistrate referred the case to the Supreme Court for a review under section 261 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance 1975. The Supreme Court was tasked with examining the correctness, legality, and propriety of the ruling.

The Supreme Court reviewed the Chief Magistrate's ruling, the written submissions from both the prosecution and the defence, and the Court of Appeal's judgment in Sebastian Stroud. The court agreed with the Chief Magistrate's reasoning that sections 12 and 12A of the Theft Act 1968 do not apply to St Helena.

The court highlighted that the relevant local legislation, the Road Traffic Ordinance 1985, already addressed the offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. The Ordinance, however, did not include the offence of allowing oneself to be carried in such a vehicle, which is a key component of section 12A of the Theft Act 1968.

The court noted that the St Helena legislature had enacted its own laws to address vehicle-related offences, and these laws were not identical to the provisions of the Theft Act 1968. The court found that the local legislation was inconsistent with the UK Act, and therefore, the UK Act could not apply.

The court also considered the legislative history and intent behind the local laws. It concluded that the omission of the offence of allowing oneself to be carried in a vehicle taken without consent was likely intentional, reflecting the local legislature's decision to handle such offences differently.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Chief Magistrate's ruling, confirming that sections 12 and 12A of the Theft Act 1968 do not apply to St Helena. The charges against the defendants were dismissed, and the court emphasized the importance of adhering to local legislative frameworks.

Legal representatives: The Attorney General for the prosecution, Lay Advocates for the defendants.

Judicial Panel: The Chief Justice Rupert Jones

Case Citation Reference: [2022] SHSC 1