Wakilii

Figgis v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 1940)

East African Court of Appeal · [1940] EACA 39 · 1940 Appeal Allowed — Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction and sentence for uttering information calculated to cause alarm and despondency
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged; fine refunded if paid

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. The court held that before a person is convicted of uttering words amounting to a criminal offence, the evidence that the words were spoken should be precise, and corroboration, though not essential, is desirable. The conviction was against the probabilities and the weight of the evidence, as the complainant's recollection was not sufficiently reliable to be preferred over the accused's precise denial and alternative account.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged; fine refunded if paid

Facts

The appellant was convicted by a magistrate of uttering information calculated to cause alarm and despondency, contrary to Regulation 3 of the Defence (Censorship) Regulations. The charge alleged that she said 'Somaliland has fallen' at a time when British Somaliland had not fallen. The complainant, whose husband was serving in British Somaliland, testified that she overheard the appellant utter these words and asked for them to be repeated. The appellant denied saying 'Somaliland has fallen' and stated she had said 'the news from Somaliland is not too good but even if it should fall it wouldn't matter, because it's a wretched place.' A third witness present at the time could not corroborate the complainant's account, saying only that something was said that gave the complainant a shock. The complainant admitted she was in a state of increasing anxiety about her husband from the fall of French Somaliland until his evacuation.

Issues

  1. Whether the conviction was against the weight of the evidence.
  2. Whether the evidence that the appellant uttered the words 'Somaliland has fallen' was sufficiently precise to sustain a conviction.
  3. What principles should guide an appellate court in reviewing factual findings by a magistrate sitting alone.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Accused acquitted.
  • Fine, if paid, directed to be refunded.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Standard of Proof — Uttering Words Amounting to Criminal Offence — Precision Required
Before a person is convicted of uttering words amounting to a criminal offence, the evidence that the words complained of were spoken should be precise, and corroboration, though not essential, is desirable.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Duty of Appellate Court — Review of Factual Findings
An appellate court hearing an appeal on a question of fact from a magistrate sitting alone must re-hear the case and make up its own mind, giving weight to the magistrate's advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses, but not shrinking from overruling the judgment if on full consideration the court concludes it is wrong. The court may differ from the magistrate on credibility where circumstances apart from manner and demeanour warrant doing so.
Evidence — Credibility — Conflicting Testimony — Complainant's State of Mind
Where a conviction depends on preferring one witness's recollection over another's, and the complainant was in a state of increasing anxiety at the material time, the possibility that the complainant misheard or misinterpreted what was said must be considered. A conviction should not stand where there is no reason to prefer the complainant's qualified recollection over the accused's precise and consistent account.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Defence (Censorship) Regulations Regulation 3

Cases cited (3)

  • Bigsby v Dickinson (4 Ch.D. 24)
  • The Glannibanta (1 P.D. 287)
  • Coghlan v Cumberland (1898) 1 Ch. 704

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Figgis v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 1940) [1940] EACA 39 (1 January 1940)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.