Rex v Seguja (Criminal Appeal 44/1935.) [1935] EACA 85 (1 January 1935)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA.

Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, P., WEBB, J. (Kenya), and FRANCIS, J. (Uganda).

REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)

KALUNA SEGUJA, Appellant (Original Accused). Criminal Appeal 44/1935.

Criminal Law—Manslaughter—Criminal negligence—Sentence— Information as to the prevalence of the offence-Criminal Procedure Code, section 280.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter by negligence in driving a motor-bus, the facts proved being that in passing a stationary car owing to the speed at which he was driving and the state of the road, which was wet, his bus ran on to the track at the side of the road and hit a cyclist. After conviction, and before sentence, Crown Counsel stated in reply to the Judge that during 1934 there had been a large number of motor accidents in the district causing 13 deaths and injury to 160 persons.

The appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour and declared disqualified from obtaining a driving licence for five years from the date of his release.

$Held$ (23-4-35).—

$\overline{ }$

(1) That the evidence shown that the appellant had shown a criminal disregard for the life and safety of others (R. v. Bateman, 19 Cr. App. R. 8.).

(2) That section 280 of the Uganda Criminal Procedure Code is an enabling section and does not preclude the Court from taking into consideration, for the purpose of assessing sentence, information afforded by a responsible officer even though not given on oath. Evidence on oath is only required when the accuracy of the information is challenged by the accused.

Appellant in person.

Mathew (Crown Counsel) for the Crown.

JUDGMENT.—The evidence in this case supports the conviction for manslaughter by negligence on the part of the prisoner when driving a bus. Crown Counsel at the trial brought to the notice of the Court the case of $R$ . v. Bateman (19 Cr. App. R., p. 8), which lays down the ingedients of the offence of manslaughter by negligence and no doubt the learned Chief Justice satisfied himself that in the circumstances of the case the prisoner drove in such a manner as to show a criminal disregard for the life

and safety of others. Crown Counsel has invited us to express our view of the propriety of his having informed the Court, with a view to assessing sentence, of the prevalence of such offences, regard being had to the provisions of section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code which enacts: "The Court may, before passing sentence, receive such evidence as it thinks fit, in order to inform itself as to the sentence proper to be passed". In our opinion that section is an enabling section and does not preclude a Court from taking into consideration information afforded by a responsible officer, the accuracy of which there is no reason to doubt. even though that information be not on oath. In the event of its accuracy being challenged by the prisoner then, in our opinion, it would be necessary to adduce evidence but not otherwise.

The appeal is dismissed.