Share
Rex v Hulatt (Cr. App. .142/1932.) [1932] EACA 26 (1 January 1932)
- Citation
- [1932] EACA 26
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Barth, C.J (Kenya), Law, Ag C.J. (Uganda), Sheridan, C.J. (Tanganyika)
- Case number
- Cr. App. .142/1932.
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Barth, C.J (Kenya), Law, Ag C.J. (Uganda), Sheridan, C.J. (Tanganyika)
- Case number
- Cr. App. .142/1932.
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code is clear and unambiguous in its language. The section provides that a person who takes or converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do so fraudulently if, in the case of money, he intends to use it at his own will, even if he intends to repay it later. The court rejected the appellant's argument that this creates a rebuttable presumption, finding instead that the section imposes a strict construction and does not allow for a presumption to be rebutted by contrary evidence. The trial judge's direction to the jury was therefore correct, and there was no misdirection. The appeal was dismissed as the grounds were unsupported by the facts and the law.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rex
Respondent Counsel: DaviesClaud Hulatt
Appellant Counsel: Schwartze03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code creates a rebuttable presumption of fraudulent intent in theft cases.
- 02
Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the interpretation of section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the appellant argued that the trial judge's direction to the jury on section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code was incomplete. He contended that the section creates a rebuttable presumption of fraudulent intent, and that the jury should have been informed that this presumption could be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. He suggested that if this had been explained, the jury might have reconsidered their verdict.
- Respondent
- Crown Counsel maintained that section 245(2)(e) is unequivocal and does not create a rebuttable presumption. He argued that the use of the word 'deemed' in the section means it is not open to interpretation as a presumption, and that the judge's direction was strictly correct. He further submitted that the jury's failure to retire again did not prejudice the accused.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Penal Code, section 245(2)(e)
Section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code must be construed strictly and does not create a rebuttable presumption of fraudulent intent.
- 02
General principles of statutory interpretation
The words of a statute that are clear and unambiguous must be given their plain meaning.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code is clear and unambiguous in its language. The section provides that a person who takes or converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do so fraudulently if, in the case of money, he intends to use it at his own will, even if he intends to repay it later. The court rejected the appellant's argument that this creates a rebuttable presumption, finding instead that the section imposes a strict construction and does not allow for a presumption to be rebutted by contrary evidence. The trial judge's direction to the jury was therefore correct, and there was no misdirection. The appeal was dismissed as the grounds were unsupported by the facts and the law.
Obiter and limits
- There is nothing in section 245(2)(e) of the Penal Code to suggest that it deals with a rebuttable presumption.
- The words of the section are clear and unambiguous and must be construed strictly.
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 JACOB BARTH, C. J. (Kenya), SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Tanganyika), and LAW, Acting C. J. (Uganda).
REX
(Respondent) (Original Prosecutor)
$\cdot_{\bm{v}.}$
CLAUD HULATT
(Appellant) (Original Accused).
Cr. App. 142/1932.
Penal Code, section 245 $(2)$ $(e)$ , definition of theft—Misdirection -Rebuttable presumption-Shorthand notes.
Held: - That the section must be construed strictly and that the jury were properly directed as to construction thereof.
Davies, Crown Counsel, for Crown.
Schwartze for Appellant.
Schwartze.-Referred to shorthand notes of trial and to interpretation of section $245$ (2) (e) to jury. The presumption is rebuttable. If that had been explained to jury when they put their question they would have again retired and verdict would not have been a foregone conclusion.
Davies.—The section is unequivocal. "Deemed" cannot be interpreted "presumed." "Although" means "even if." The fact that jury did not again retire did not in any way prejudice accused.
Schwartze replied.
JUDGMENT.-In this appeal it is sought to quash the conviction and sentence on the ground of misdirection. The appellant was tried by a jury at Nairobi on an information alleging three offences under section 258, Penal Code. He was found guilty of the first two and acquitted on the third.
The appeal does not suggest any misdirection to the jury in the course of the summing up, but after retirement and before giving their verdict the foreman of the jury asked the learned trial Judge the following question: "Are the jury required to observe a strict interpretation of paragraph (e) of section 245 (2) of the Penal Code? The reply was in the affirmative and the section was paraphased. At this point Mr. Schwartze, who was appearing for the accused, interposed. He admitted that the learned Judge was strictly correct in his direction, but went on to suggest that it did not go far enough in that the fraudulent intention deemed to arise from acts within section 245 (2) (e) The jury gave their verdict without further retirement.
In view of the shorthand note the grounds of appeal would appear to be unsupported by the facts of the case. But, in our opinion, there is nothing in section 245 $(2)$ $(e)$ of the Penal Code to suggest that it deals with a rebuttable presumption. The words of the section are clear and unambiguous: fos
"A person who takes or converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do so fraudulently if he does so with, in the case of money, an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes and converts it although he may intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner."
ίn.
The sub-section does not say that such a person may in the absence of any evidence to the contrary be presumed to act fraudulently. $\cdot\ \cdot$ $\mathbf{A} = \mathbf{A}$
In our opinion the effection must be construed strictly. 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.