Phiri v People (Appeal 150 of 1984) [1987] ZMSC 38 (17 November 1987)
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge misdirected himself by placing the burden of proof on the accused regarding the voluntariness of the confession, rather than on the prosecution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] ZMSC 38
- Parties
- Appellant: Gift Phiri; Respondent: The People
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal 150 of 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Confession Evidence, Burden of Proof, Voluntariness of Confession, Murder
- 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
Gift Phiri
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the confession statement was made voluntarily
- 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected himself by placing the burden of proof on the accused
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge misdirected himself by placing the burden of proof on the accused regarding the voluntariness of the confession, rather than on the prosecution.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
in THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA Appeal Mo. 150 of 1984 HOLQEM AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) k r GIFT PHIRI v THE PEOPLE Appellant i Respondent / CORAM’ Sllungwe, 8. J., Mgulube. O. C. J, and Gardner, J. S., 17th1November. 1887 ..... V. Henriques. Senior Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant K. C. Chanda. Senior State Advocate, for the respondent JUOGMEMT Sllungwe, C. J., delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was charged with the murder of one Wanki MulopuKaurtv on $apt«Ur^;3« 1993. at Uscta, contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code. Cap. 146. At his trial, it transpired that the only evidence upon which he could be convicted was his alleged confession statement. He was in fact convicted and sentenced and given the mandatory sentence of death. The alleged confession statement was the subject of a trial within a trial. The appellant disputed the alleged confession statement as having been made voluntarily and stated: that he had been beaten to make him confess. This assertion by the appellant was rejected by the learned trial Judge who misdirected himself by placing the burden of proof on the appellant. It is not for the accused person to prove that he did not make a confession statement, or that the confession statement he made was involuntary^ On the contrary, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that' the confession had been made voluntarily by the accused. Because of the misdirection In this case, which the learned senior State Advocate representing the People has properly conceded. It Is unsafe to allow tne conviction to stand. The appeal Is allowed, the conviction is 2/quashed quashed and the sentence is set aside. A. M. Silungwe CHIEF JUSTICE M. S. Mguiube g^UH CW justice 6. T. Gardner SUPREME COURT JUDGE