JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The first and second appellants in this appeal were respectively, at the time when they were charged with the offences of corruption in respect of which they were convicted by the learned senior resident magistrate, the resident magistrate and court clerk at the Voi Law Courts. Prior to their conviction, they had been arraigned before another magistrate. But the related trial had been discontinued when, after seven prosecution witnesses had testified, a nolle prosequi was then entered by the Attorney General. In the course of the trial before the learned senior resident magistrate, counsel appearing for the appellants withdrew from representing the appellants when the learned senior resident magistrate refused to grant an adjournment sought by them.
The appellants did not object to their counsel's application and the learned senior resident magistrate then being of the view that the appellants had colluded with their counsel in the letters' withdrawal, with the int…