Rex v Chumachienda (Criminal Appeal 172/1934) [1935] EACA 73 (1 January 1935)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA.

Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, P., ABRAHAMS, C. J. (Tanganyika) and Law, C. J. (Zanzibar).

REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)

RALPH CHUMACHIENDA, Appellant (Original Accused). Criminal Appeal 172/1934.

The accused was charged before the District Magistrate at Zomba, with having murdered a juvenile male native by striking him on the head with a hoe thus inflicting injuries from which the child died eight days later. Two of the assessors advised that in their opinion the accused was in a state of drunkenness at the time when he committed the offence. The District Magistrate found the accused guilty. The Acting Assistant Attorney-General on behalf of the accused submitted that at the time of the assault there was a reasonable doubt as to whether accused in his state of drunkenness was capable of forming the specific intent to kill and expressed the view that accused should be convicted of manslaughter.

The case was referred to the Acting Judge of the High Court for confirmation in terms of the Criminal Procedure Code and on the authority of Rex v. Meade (1909) 1 K. B. p. 895. the Acting Judge directed the Magistrate to enter a finding of guilty and to pass sentence accordingly.

$Held$ (14-1-35).—That the drunkenness of the appellant had not the effect of reducing the crime to manslaughter.

That the decision in the case of \*Rex v. Murray (Cr. A. 133/32) should be followed as to procedure.

No appearance for parties.

JUDGMENT.-The evidence supports the conviction and we agree that the drunkenness of the appellant has not the effect of reducing the crime to manslaughter.

The appeal is dismissed.

As regards the query raised by the Acting Assistant Attorney-General on a question of procedure, our opinion is that the decision in the case of \*Rex v. Murray, Cr. App. 133/1932 should be followed rather than that in Rex v. Saiti, Cr. App. 87/1934. When the latter case was decided the Court's attention was not attracted to the decision in Rex v. Murray.

Generally in regard to appeals from Nyasaland, we desire to place on record the desirability of having such arrangements made as will secure that appeals are presented by counsel; the Court has on different occasions been handicapped in considering appeals by reason of the absence of counsel.

<span id="page-0-0"></span>\*Rex v. Murray (supra) Law Reports of Nyasaland, Vol. 3 p. 51.