Share
Rex v Bulegeya (Criminal Appeal 12/1935.) [1935] EACA 74 (1 January 1935)
- Citation
- [1935] EACA 74
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Gamble. Ag. J. (Kenya), Sheridan, J
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal 12/1935.
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Gamble. Ag. J. (Kenya), Sheridan, J
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal 12/1935.
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the appellant's intoxication was insufficient to afford a legal excuse for the act of murder. The evidence supported the conviction, and the law does not recognize mere drunkenness as a defence to a charge of murder unless it is so extreme as to negate intent. The court also noted that the statutory statement made by the accused before the Committing Magistrate should have been admitted, regardless of whether it was favourable or unfavourable to the accused, in accordance with established legal principles. However, this omission did not affect the outcome, as the conviction was otherwise supported by the evidence.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rex
Respondent Counsel: MathewMidagwe bin Bulegeya
Appellant03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether intoxication can serve as a legal excuse for murder.
- 02
Whether the accused's statutory statement at the preliminary inquiry should have been admitted as evidence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued in his memorandum of appeal that he was drunk at the time of the alleged murder and did not kill the deceased.
- Respondent
- The Crown, represented by Mathew, maintained that the evidence supported the conviction and that the appellant's intoxication did not excuse his actions under the law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law; referenced in Regina v. Gardner (1899, 1 Q.B.D. 150 at 155).
Intoxication is not a legal excuse for the commission of murder unless it negates the requisite intent.
- 02
Regina v. Gardner (1899, 1 Q.B.D. 150 at 155).
A statutory statement made by the accused before the Committing Magistrate should be put in evidence, whether it is in favour of or against the accused.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the appellant's intoxication was insufficient to afford a legal excuse for the act of murder. The evidence supported the conviction, and the law does not recognize mere drunkenness as a defence to a charge of murder unless it is so extreme as to negate intent. The court also noted that the statutory statement made by the accused before the Committing Magistrate should have been admitted, regardless of whether it was favourable or unfavourable to the accused, in accordance with established legal principles. However, this omission did not affect the outcome, as the conviction was otherwise supported by the evidence.
Obiter and limits
- The court observed that the statutory statement of the appellant before the Committing Magistrate should have been put in evidence, treating it not as evidence but as a statement made by him.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- 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, P., ABRAHAMS, C. J. (Tanganyika) and GAMBLE, Ag. J. (Kenya).
REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
MIDAGWE BIN BULEGEYA, Appellant (Original Accused). Criminal Appeal 12/1935.
Drunkenness in itself no excuse in law-Statement of accused to be put in as evidence.
Appellant was convicted by the High Court of Tanganyika, of murder. In his Memo of Appeal he submitted that he was drunk and did not kill the deceased with whose murder he had been charged.
$Held$ (16-2-35).—That the intoxication of the appellant was not such as to afford an excuse in law.
That the statement of accused at the preliminary inquiry should have been put in as evidence.
Mathew for Crown.
Appellant absent unrepresented.
JUDGMENT.—The evidence in this case supports the conviction and the intoxication of the appellant was not such as to afford an excuse in law for his act. We observe that the statutory statement of the appellant before the Committing Magistrate was not put in evidence and as to this we would say that it should have been. As was pointed out by LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C. J., in Regina v. Gardner (1899, 1 Q. B. D. p. 150 at 155) on a consideration of a precisely similar provision of English law the statement should have been put in whether it spoke for or against the appellant, treating it not as evidence but as a statement made by him.
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.