Share
Rex v Biagan (Cr. Case No. 48/1936) [1936] EACA 142 (1 January 1936)
- Citation
- [1936] EACA 142
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Lane, Ag. J
- Case number
- Cr. Case No. 48/1936
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Lane, Ag. J
- Case number
- Cr. Case No. 48/1936
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that, on a strict interpretation of section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only statements or evidence made by the accused in the proceedings which resulted in committal (i.e., the second preliminary inquiry ordered under section 233) are admissible at trial. Since the accused made no statement at the second inquiry, the statement from the first inquiry is inadmissible. This interpretation prevents prejudice to the accused and ensures that only relevant and procedurally valid statements are considered at trial.
Court disposition
statement_inadmissible
Orders
- The statement made by the accused at the first preliminary inquiry is refused and not admitted at trial.
02
Material facts
Parties
REX
Applicant Counsel: DennisonKiptartar Arap Biagan
Defendant Counsel: R. E. G. Russell03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Trial / Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a statement made by the accused at the first preliminary inquiry is admissible at trial after a second inquiry is held under section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 02
Whether only statements made in the proceedings resulting in committal should be admitted at trial.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Dennison for the Crown argued that the statement of an accused person must be put in at trial, referencing R v. Midagwe (2 E. A. C. A. 74). He later conceded that since the Crown had two opportunities to present its case, fairness dictates that the accused should also have the benefit of his choice regarding statements made.
- Respondent
- Russell for the accused expressed indifference, noting that the issue was academic and had not been previously decided regarding the admissibility of statements made at a first inquiry when a second inquiry is held under section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 289, Criminal Procedure Code
Only the accused's statement or evidence in the proceedings which resulted in committal should be read and put in at the trial.
- 02
Section 233, Criminal Procedure Code
A statement made at a preliminary inquiry that has resulted in a nullity is not admissible at trial if a second inquiry is held and no statement is made.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that, on a strict interpretation of section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only statements or evidence made by the accused in the proceedings which resulted in committal (i.e., the second preliminary inquiry ordered under section 233) are admissible at trial. Since the accused made no statement at the second inquiry, the statement from the first inquiry is inadmissible. This interpretation prevents prejudice to the accused and ensures that only relevant and procedurally valid statements are considered at trial.
Obiter and limits
- The point raised is not of great importance in this case, but in other cases, admitting statements from a nullified inquiry could prejudice the accused.
- The Crown has had two opportunities to present its case, and fairness requires that the accused be allowed the benefit of his election regarding statements made.
Court disposition
statement_inadmissible
- The statement made by the accused at the first preliminary inquiry is refused and not admitted at trial.
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
ORIGINAL CRIMINAL
Before LANE, AG. J.
REX. Prosecutor ν.
KIPTARTAR ARAP BIAGAN, Accused
Cr. Case No. 48/1936
Criminal Procedure-Statement of accused to committing Magistrate -Preliminary inquiry re-opened-No statement made by accused at second preliminary inquiry—Admissibility of statement made at original inquiry—Cr. Pro. Code, secs. 219, 233, 289.
Held (17-6-36).—That the statement of an accused person at the first inquiry, where a re-hearing by the committing Court has been held under section<br>233 Cr. Pro. Code is not admissible at the trial.
Dennison. Crown Counsel. for Crown.
R. E. G. Russell, for accused.
A preliminary inquiry was held before a magistrate on 11-3-36 and the accused then made a statement and was committed for trial on a charge of murder. Further investigation was directed by the Attorney General under section 233, Cr. Pro. Code and on the 28th May, 1936, the proceedings were re-opened and all the depositions were recorded de novo. The accused then made no statement and was again committed for trial on a charge of murder. On his trial the prosecution sought to put in evidence the statement made by him at the first preliminary inquiry.
Dennison, for the Crown.-It has been laid down over and over again that the statement of an accused person must be put in at trial: See R v. Midagwe (2 E. A. C. A. 74).
Russell for the accused.—I am indifferent in this instance: it is an academic point which has not been decided as to what ought to be done in such a case where action has been talken under section 233, Cr. Pro. Code.
Dennison (after argument).—I am inclined to think that the statement ought to be left open. The Crown has had two bites at the cherry and it is only fair to allow the accused to avail himself of his choice equally.
After further argument: $-$
ORDER.-In this case the point raised is not of great importance but one can imagine cases where the accused might be definitely prejudiced by the putting in of a statement or evidence given by himself at a preliminary inquiry which has resulted in a nullity, and where a second inquiry was also held at which he made no statement, or a different statement. On a strict interpretation of the words of section 289 Cr. Pro. Code, I hold therefore that only the accused's statement or evidence in the proceedings which resulted in a committal (i.e. the 2nd proceedings ordered under section 233 Cr. Pro. Code), should be read and put in at the trial. In this case there was<br>no such statement: the accused made none. I therefore refuse to<br>admit the statement made by the accused at the first inquiry. He has made his election in the matter and he should be allowed the benefit of it.
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.