Wakilii

Godfrey v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 71 · 1947 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from Magistrate's Court conviction for careless driving and dangerous driving
Decision
Appellant's conviction for careless driving upheld with fine; conviction for dangerous driving quashed and sentence of imprisonment and disqualification set aside; compensation order set aside

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

On a charge of careless or dangerous driving under the Traffic Ordinance, evidence that an accused has consumed alcohol during a certain period is admissible under section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act as tending to show probable mental and physical condition at the time of the offence. A driver is not under a duty to place his vehicle in jeopardy at the behest of pedestrians. Conviction for careless driving upheld; conviction for dangerous driving quashed where the accused was unaware an accident had occurred and gave reasonable explanation for not stopping immediately.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction for careless driving upheld with fine; conviction for dangerous driving quashed and sentence of imprisonment and disqualification set aside; compensation order set aside

Facts

The appellant was driving a 15 cwt. Army truck along Langata Road in the early hours of 2 March 1947 when he scraped the side of a stationary saloon car. The driver of the saloon car, Arthur John Deadman, had stopped because the truck appeared to be in the centre of the road coming diagonally towards him. Four occupants of the saloon car got out and two ran after the truck calling on the appellant to stop. The truck accelerated and turned up a side road, then stopped, turned round, and began to retrace its course. The Deadman family turned their car round and joined up across the road to stop the truck. The appellant did not stop until he had passed them by about 20 yards. Once stopped, the appellant's behaviour was correct; he inspected the damage and offered to pay for it, giving his name and address. The appellant stated he thought he had missed the car and was unaware any accident had occurred. Visibility was bad, it was raining, and the road surface was murram and bumpy.

Issues

  1. Whether evidence of alcohol consumption is admissible in a traffic offence case where there is no allegation of drunkenness or impairment of efficiency due to drink.
  2. Whether the appellant's failure to stop immediately at the behest of pedestrians constituted dangerous driving under section 15 of the Traffic Ordinance.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as to conviction for careless driving under section 16(1) of the Traffic Ordinance.
  • Appeal allowed as to conviction for dangerous driving under section 15 of the Traffic Ordinance.
  • Conviction on the third count (dangerous driving) quashed.
  • Sentence of imprisonment remitted.
  • Disqualification from obtaining a driving licence for two years set aside.
  • Conviction and fine on the first count (careless driving) upheld.
  • Payment of compensation ordered by the Magistrate set aside.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissibility — Alcohol Consumption in Traffic Offences
On a charge of careless or dangerous driving under the Traffic Ordinance, evidence that an accused has consumed a certain amount of alcohol during a certain period is admissible under section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, not as evidence that he has committed some other crime with which he is not charged, but as tending to show his probable mental and physical condition at a subsequent time when such considerations may be highly relevant on the issue as to whether such person has exercised due and proper care.
Criminal Law — Traffic Offences — Dangerous Driving — Duty to Stop
A driver of a vehicle is not under a duty to place his own vehicle in jeopardy at the behest of any pedestrian, and whether a failure to stop immediately constitutes dangerous driving must depend upon the circumstances in each case.
Criminal Law — Traffic Offences — Dangerous Driving — Elements of Offence
Where an accused was unaware that an accident had occurred and gave a reasonable explanation for not stopping immediately when pedestrians sought to bar the progress of his vehicle, the act of not stopping at once does not by itself constitute an act so reckless and dangerous to the public as to constitute an offence of dangerous driving under section 15 of the Traffic Ordinance.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Traffic Ordinance s.16(1)
  • Traffic Ordinance s.15
  • Indian Evidence Act s.14

Cases cited (1)

  • Makin v Attorney General of New South Wales [1894] AC 57

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Godfrey v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1947) [1947] EACA 71 (1 January 1947)
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.