Wakilii

Rex v Muriemoi (Cr. App. No. 140 of 1938)

East African Court of Appeal · [1938] EACA 154 · 1938 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by H.M. Supreme Court of Kenya
Decision
Conviction for murder upheld

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

Held that a statement made to a magistrate was admissible despite a police officer's suggestion that it might be better to make a statement, because there was no evidence the words operated as an inducement on the accused's mind and the magistrate had cautioned him emphatically. The proper procedure when admissibility of a confession is challenged is for the judge to hear evidence in the absence of assessors and rule on admissibility. A magistrate's duty is to satisfy himself the statement is voluntary, not to dissuade an accused from speaking. A statement need not contain the whole truth to be a confession if sufficiently corroborated by other evidence.

Outcome

Conviction for murder upheld

Facts

The appellant, a forest guard with one wife, took a second wife named Watahi. On 25 June 1938, her body was found in bush near the appellant's house with a silk handkerchief stuffed in her mouth. Medical evidence established death by strangulation and suffocation with a severe bruise on the abdomen. The appellant was arrested and two days later made a statement to a magistrate after a police inspector told him 'It might be better for you to make a statement. It might do you good; it might not.' In the statement, the appellant said he beat his wife because she had venereal disease and refused hospital treatment, she fell and ran away, and her brother later found her dead. A witness testified the appellant told him he had killed his wife and where to find the body.

Issues

  1. Whether a statement made to a magistrate was admissible where a police officer had told the accused 'It might be better for you to make a statement'.
  2. Whether the magistrate properly discharged his duty in recording the statement.
  3. What is the proper procedure where objection is raised as to the admissibility of an alleged confession.
  4. Whether the statement constituted a confession sufficient to support a conviction for murder.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Police Inducement — Words Suggesting Benefit
Police officers should avoid addressing accused persons with words such as 'It would be or might be better for you to make a statement', as such words may be regarded as an inducement that could render a subsequent confession inadmissible.
Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Test for Inducement
The proper questions in determining whether an inducement renders a confession inadmissible are whether the inducement was calculated to make the statement untrue and whether the inducement continued to operate at the moment the statement was made. Where there is no evidence that alleged inducing words operated on the accused's mind, the statement remains admissible.
Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Undeceiving by Magistrate
Even if an inducement was held out by a police officer, a statement is admissible if the accused was clearly undeceived by the magistrate before whom the statement was made.
Criminal Procedure — Confessions — Duty of Magistrate Recording Statement
The only duty of a magistrate before recording a statement from an accused person is to satisfy himself that the statement is voluntary and has not been induced by any promise or threat. It is in the interests of justice that if an accused person genuinely wishes to make a statement he should be allowed to do so and not dissuaded.
Criminal Procedure — Confessions — Trial Procedure — Voir Dire
The proper course where objection is raised as to the admissibility of an alleged confession is for the judge to hear evidence in the absence of the assessors as to the circumstances leading up to the recording of the confession and to rule upon that evidence whether the alleged confession should be admitted or not. The judge cannot decide the question by merely looking at the depositions.
Evidence — Confessions — Sufficiency — Partial Confession
There is no reason why a confession should contain the whole truth or be wholly true, provided it appears to be sufficiently true. A confession must be considered in conjunction with other evidence, and if that other evidence affords ample corroboration and establishes what the accused left unsaid, it may support a conviction.

Cases cited (3)

  • R v Chadwick (24 Cr. App. R. 138)
  • Rex v Njogira (Cr. App. No. 60 of 1936)
  • 2 East P.C. 658

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Muriemoi (Cr. App. No. 140 of 1938) [1938] EACA 154 (1 January 1938)
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.