[1943] EACA 9
The Court held that the accused's plea of guilty was not unequivocal, as there was no evidence that the ingredients of manslaughter by negligence were explained to him. The record did not show that the accused understood his duty of care, the failure to discharge that duty, the causal link to the death, or the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1943] EACA 9
- Parties
- Appellant: Danieri Bisamuli s/o Kite; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1942
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court
- Outcome
- conviction_quashed_and_sentence_set_aside
- Judges
- Sheridan CJ, Whitley CJ, Wilson ACJ
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter by Negligence, Plea of Guilty, Criminal Procedure, Duty of Care, Sentencing Guidelines
- 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
Danieri Bisamuli s/o Kite
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused's plea of guilty to manslaughter by negligence was unequivocal and valid.
- 2 Whether the accused was adequately informed of the ingredients of the offence before entering the plea.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the facts of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the accused's plea of guilty was not unequivocal, as there was no evidence that the ingredients of manslaughter by negligence were explained to him. The record did not show that the accused understood his duty of care, the failure to discharge that duty, the causal link to the death, or the criminal nature of the negligence. The Court emphasized that, especially for native accused persons, the only safe way to determine guilt in such cases is by hearing evidence from both the prosecution and the defence. The proceedings were declared a nullity, and both the conviction and sentence were quashed. The Court also noted that the sentence imposed was excessive for the facts...
Court Disposition
conviction_quashed_and_sentence_set_aside
Orders
- The conviction is quashed.
- The sentence is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 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)
## DANIERI BISAMULI s/o KITE, Appellant (Original Accused) Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1942
#### Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Uganda
Criminal Law—Manslaughter by negligence—Plea of guilty not unequivocal— Necessity for full explanation to accused of ingredients of offence.
The accused was a warder in charge of a small native administration prison. On the day in question, the cells were fumigated with a strong deadly poisonous gas; the prisoners having been taken out in the morning. The cells were closed and the gas turned on. The accused was instructed that nobody was to enter the cells until evening and then not until the cells had been opened to the air for an hour. At 2 p.m., after dinner, one of the prisoners complained that he was unfit for further work. The accused, forgetting about the fumigation, put or caused to be put that prisoner—the deceased—into a cell of which the window was closed pursuant to the fumigation. The accused and other prisoners then returned to work and the deceased prisoner was asphyxiated in the cell. The accused, in answer to the charge, said "It is so", and this was entered as a plea of guilty to the offence. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for five years.
Held $(20-1-43)$ .—(1) Before a plea of guilty to manslaughter by negligence is entered, the Court should explain to the accused the ingredients of the charge:-
(a) That he had a duty to take care.
(b) That there was a failure to discharge that duty.
(c) That death was due to his default.
(d) That his negligence went beyond a mere matter of compensation and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and was deserving of punishment.
(2) In the vast majority of cases where the ordinary native is charged with manslaughter by negligence there can be but one safe way of eliciting whether the crime has been brought home to the accused and that is by deciding the issue after hearing the evidence for the Crown and the defence.
Semble.—A sentence of five years' imprisonment with hard labour was excessive upon the facts as shown in the depositions.
The plea was not an unequivocal plea of guilty and the proceedings were declared to be a nullity.
The conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside.
Appellant absent, unrepresented.
#### Stacey, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—In this unusual case of alleged manslaughter by negligence we do not know what was put to the accused and how the ingredients of the offence were explained to him. It is obvious that it must be a very difficult matter for a native to understand the ingredients of a charge of manslaughter by negligence and this would be particularly so on the facts of this case. The accused in answer to whatever was put to him said "It is so", and this answer we are quite unable to accept as an unequivocal plea of guilty. The cases Rex v. Abyasali 3 E. A. C. A. 42 and Rex v. Yokana
3 E. A. C. A. 104 are in point. Was it explained to the accused (1) that he had a duty to take care, (2) that there was a failure to discharge that duty. (3) that death was due to his default, and (4) that his negligence went beyond a mere matter of compensation and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and was deserving of punishment? There is nothing on the record to show that this was done. And we go so far as to say that in the vast majority of cases where the ordinary native is charged with manslaughter by negligence there can be but one safe way of eliciting whether the crime has been brought home to the accused and that is by deciding the issue. after hearing the evidence for the Crown and the Defence. From the learned Judge's remarks in sentencing the accused it would appear that what happened may have been due to forgetfulness on the part of the accused, which is something very different from the criminal negligence referred to in the well-known case of Rex v. Bateman 19 Criminal Appeal Reports p. 8. By reason of the plea not being an unequivocal plea of guilty the proceedings are a nullity, the conviction and sentence are quashed and the accused is discharged.
If we had to deal with the question of sentence we should have reduced it very considerably, for a case of manslaughter by negligence such as this must be definitely distinguished from the kind of cases which was before this Court recently where a person unqualified in medical science went round the country giving injections for profit. Should it so happen that any further proceedings are taken against the accused no doubt the period of four months already served by him will be taken into account.