LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial Procedure — Failure of Justice — What Constitutes — Section 382 of Criminal Procedure Code
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There is a failure of justice not only where the conviction was wrong, but also when the error or omission may reasonably be considered to have brought about the conviction. Where one of the appellant's fundamental rights is infringed by the error, there is an automatic failure of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Damina v. The State (1995) NLC-1191994(SC) at pp. 19–20; Paras. D–A.
"There is a failure of justice not only where the court comes to the conclusion that the conviction was wrong, but also when it is of the opinion that the error or omission in the court below may reasonably be considered to have brought about the conviction, and when on the whole facts and in the absence of the error or omission, the trial court might fairly and reasonably have found the appellant not guilty. Where one of the appellant's fundamental rights is infringed by the error, there is an automatic failure of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Failure of justice occurs when an error contributed to the conviction or when a fundamental right is infringed. The principle applies to criminal appeals. The appellate court will not apply the proviso if there is a failure of justice. The rule protects the accused’s rights. The court will examine whether the error affected the outcome. Infringement of fundamental rights automatically results in failure of justice. The principle guides appellate intervention.