[1943] EACA 7
The Court held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his capacity to form the requisite intent for murder, particularly given the deliberate use of a knife and the infliction of 18 wounds. The Court further held that the refusal of sexual intercourse by the deceased did not amount to legal provocation under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1943] EACA 7
- Parties
- Appellant: AMRI bin ABDALLA; Respondent: REX
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1942
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld
- Judges
- Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ, Wilson ACJ
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Intoxication, Provocation, Intent, Confession
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AMRI bin ABDALLA
Appellant
REX
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether intoxication negated the accused's capacity to form the intention to commit murder.
- 2 Whether refusal of sexual intercourse constituted legal provocation sufficient to reduce the offence from murder.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his capacity to form the requisite intent for murder, particularly given the deliberate use of a knife and the infliction of 18 wounds. The Court further held that the refusal of sexual intercourse by the deceased did not amount to legal provocation under the law. The extra judicial confession was found to be voluntary and truthful. Accordingly, the conviction for murder was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
## Before Sir Joseph Sheridan, C. J. (Kenya), Sir Norman Whitley, C. J. (Uganda) and MARK WILSON, Ag. C. J. (Tanganyika)
REX. Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
$\mathbf{v}$
AMRI bin ABDALLA, Appellant (Original Accused) Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1942
Appeal from decision of H. M. Supreme Court of Kenya
Criminal Law—Intention—Section 14 Penal Code—Use of knife by intoxicated person—Provocation—Refusal of sexual intercourse.
The accused was convicted of the murder of a woman by stabbing her with a knife. There were 18 wounds on the deceased's body. The accused made an extra judicial statement which was not retracted, in which he said that he was very drunk and admitted stabbing the deceased, and gave as the reason that the woman refused to have sexual intercourse with him. There was evidence that the accused was intoxicated at the time.
Held $(18-1-43)$ .—(1) On the question of intoxication the use of a knife by an intoxicated person must always be a telling factor against him.
(Dictum of Alderson, B. in *Meakin's* case 7 C. and P. 297 approved.)
(2) A refusal of sexual intercourse does not let in the doctrine of legal provocation. The appeal was dismissed.
Appellant present, unrepresented.
Stacey, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—The accused made an extra judicial confession which was not retracted. This Court has no reason to doubt the voluntary nature of that confession nor to doubt its truth. The learned trial Judge gave very careful consideration to the issue of drunkenness as bearing on the question of the capacity of the accused to form an intention to commit the crime of murder and whether he did form such an intention. On this question of intention the use of a knife by an intoxicated person must always be a telling factor against him (see the remarks of Baron Alderson in *Meakin's case*, 7 C. & P. 297) and we have no reason to disagree with the learned Judge in his having decided this issue against him. The reason for the murder put forward by the accused—a refusal of sexual intercourse—does not in the view of this Court let in the doctrine of legal provocation. The appeal is dismissed.