Share
Rex v Amri (Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1942) [1943] EACA 7 (1 January 1943)
- Citation
- [1943] EACA 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ, Wilson ACJ
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1942
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ, Wilson ACJ
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1942
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his capacity to form the requisite intent for murder, particularly given the deliberate use of a knife and the infliction of 18 wounds. The Court further held that the refusal of sexual intercourse by the deceased did not amount to legal provocation under the law. The extra judicial confession was found to be voluntary and truthful. Accordingly, the conviction for murder was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
AMRI bin ABDALLA
AppellantREX
Respondent Counsel: Stacey03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether intoxication negated the accused's capacity to form the intention to commit murder.
- 02
Whether refusal of sexual intercourse constituted legal provocation sufficient to reduce the offence from murder.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued, through his extra judicial confession, that he was very drunk at the time of the offence and that his actions were provoked by the deceased's refusal to have sexual intercourse with him. He implied that his intoxication and the alleged provocation should mitigate his culpability for murder.
- Respondent
- The Crown contended that the accused's intoxication did not negate his capacity to form intent, especially given the use of a knife and the number of wounds inflicted. The Crown further argued that refusal of sexual intercourse does not amount to legal provocation under the law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Baron Alderson in Meakin's case, 7 C. & P. 297
The use of a knife by an intoxicated person is a telling factor against the accused when considering intent.
- 02
Court's own reasoning; no statutory or case citation provided
Refusal of sexual intercourse does not constitute legal provocation for the purposes of reducing murder to manslaughter.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his capacity to form the requisite intent for murder, particularly given the deliberate use of a knife and the infliction of 18 wounds. The Court further held that the refusal of sexual intercourse by the deceased did not amount to legal provocation under the law. The extra judicial confession was found to be voluntary and truthful. Accordingly, the conviction for murder was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- On the question of intoxication, the use of a knife by an intoxicated person must always be a telling factor against him.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld
- The appeal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before Sir Joseph Sheridan, C. J. (Kenya), Sir Norman Whitley, C. J. (Uganda) and MARK WILSON, Ag. C. J. (Tanganyika)
REX. Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
$\mathbf{v}$
AMRI bin ABDALLA, Appellant (Original Accused) Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1942
Appeal from decision of H. M. Supreme Court of Kenya
Criminal Law—Intention—Section 14 Penal Code—Use of knife by intoxicated person—Provocation—Refusal of sexual intercourse.
The accused was convicted of the murder of a woman by stabbing her with a knife. There were 18 wounds on the deceased's body. The accused made an extra judicial statement which was not retracted, in which he said that he was very drunk and admitted stabbing the deceased, and gave as the reason that the woman refused to have sexual intercourse with him. There was evidence that the accused was intoxicated at the time.
Held $(18-1-43)$ .—(1) On the question of intoxication the use of a knife by an intoxicated person must always be a telling factor against him.
(Dictum of Alderson, B. in *Meakin's* case 7 C. and P. 297 approved.)
(2) A refusal of sexual intercourse does not let in the doctrine of legal provocation. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant present, unrepresented.
Stacey, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—The accused made an extra judicial confession which was not retracted. This Court has no reason to doubt the voluntary nature of that confession nor to doubt its truth. The learned trial Judge gave very careful consideration to the issue of drunkenness as bearing on the question of the capacity of the accused to form an intention to commit the crime of murder and whether he did form such an intention. On this question of intention the use of a knife by an intoxicated person must always be a telling factor against him (see the remarks of Baron Alderson in *Meakin's case*, 7 C. & P. 297) and we have no reason to disagree with the learned Judge in his having decided this issue against him. The reason for the murder put forward by the accused—a refusal of sexual intercourse—does not in the view of this Court let in the doctrine of legal provocation. The appeal is dismissed.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.