Kanyike v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 34 of 1989)
The full judgment
Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Where facts and cautioned statements were admitted under section 64 of the Trial on Indictments Decree, the court held that admitted facts are deemed proved and cannot be disputed in the defence; the voluntariness of a confession can only be tested by a trial within a trial during the prosecution case, not when analysing the defence. However, because the accused pleaded not guilty yet wholesale-admitted the prosecution case and then gave contradictory defence statements, the conduct of the trial was ambiguous and the real issues may not have been decided. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered a trial de novo, cautioning against wholesale paper trials in criminal proceedings.
Facts
The appellant Abasi Kanyike was tried with a co-accused in the High Court on a charge that included attempted murder and an alternative count of assault with intent to rob under the Penal Code Act. The cautioned statements showed that on 15 September 1987 the appellant, a gardener known to the complainant, and the co-accused entered the complainant's house, beat him, but abandoned the attack when he defended himself. The trial was a paper trial: no prosecution witnesses were called and the witnesses' police statements and the accuseds' cautioned statements were read out and admitted without objection at the preliminary hearing. Both accused pleaded not guilty but the prosecution case was admitted wholesale; the accused then gave defence statements retracting and repudiating the cautioned statements and raising self-defence and non-participation. The trial judge admitted the defence, disbelieved it, and convicted on the admitted facts. The appellant was acquitted of attempted murder and convicted of assault with intent to rob, receiving seven years' imprisonment.
Issues
- Whether, once a fact or confession is admitted or agreed in a memorandum under section 64 of the Trial on Indictments Decree, it can subsequently be disputed or challenged in the defence.
- Whether the voluntariness of a cautioned statement can be challenged for the first time during the defence rather than by a trial within a trial during the prosecution case.
- Whether the convictions were safe where the accused pleaded not guilty yet admitted the whole prosecution case, leaving the real issues untried.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant set aside.
- Trial de novo ordered.
- Appellant remanded in custody for that purpose.
- Co-accused Emmanuel to be called before the Registrar, informed of the decision and asked whether he wishes to appeal.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Penal Code Act s.274(1)
- Penal Code Act s.274(2)(b)
- Penal Code Act s.274A
- Penal Code Act s.275
- Penal Code Act s.297
- Trial on Indictments Decree s.64
- Trial on Indictments Decree s.64(2)
Cases cited (1)
- KAHYANKOLE V. R. (1972) E.A. 308 at p.310