Wakilii

Rex v Retief (Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1941] EACA 71 · 1941 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder by H.M. Supreme Court of Kenya
Decision
Conviction for murder upheld despite misdirection

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 held that where drunkenness is raised as a defence, the jury must be directed that if intoxication rendered the accused incapable of forming the intent to cause death or grievous harm, the offence is manslaughter, not murder. Although the trial judge misdirected the jury by failing to give this direction, the appeal was dismissed because on the evidence—including use of a deadly weapon, coherent conduct after the stabbing, and detailed recollection—the jury must inevitably have concluded the appellant was capable of forming the requisite intent.

Outcome

Conviction for murder upheld despite misdirection

Facts

The appellant, while intoxicated, chased a woman downstairs brandishing a knife and shouting he would kill her. He then stabbed a deceased Indian standing by a billiard table with a knife that penetrated 3.5 inches deep into the chest and heart. Shortly after, he threatened another Indian with the knife until a Colonel intervened. The appellant put the knife away when told, gave sensible answers, but resumed the quarrel and slightly wounded the second Indian. He later gave a coherent account to his comrades of the events. At trial, the appellant claimed he was so drunk he remembered nothing after having a double whisky. The defence argued he was either insane from intoxication or incapable of forming the intent necessary for murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the defence of drunkenness in a murder case.
  2. Whether drunkenness rendering an accused incapable of forming the intent to kill or cause grievous harm reduces murder to manslaughter.
  3. Whether a conviction for murder can stand where the jury was not properly directed on the effect of intoxication on capacity to form intent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Drunkenness as Defence — General Principle
As a general proposition, drunkenness is no excuse for crime.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity — Insanity Induced by Drunkenness
Insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to a criminal charge. If actual insanity supervenes as the result of alcoholic excess, it furnishes as complete an answer to a criminal charge as insanity induced by any other cause, whether the insanity is permanent or temporary. If intoxication induces insanity such that the accused did not know the nature of his act or that it was wrongful, the verdict should be guilty of the act charged but insane when he did the act.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Insanity Defence
The burden of proof of insanity is on the accused and the degree of proof required is that required of a plaintiff in a civil case.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Intent — Effect of Intoxication on Capacity to Form Intent
To constitute murder, the prosecution must establish an intent to cause death or grievous harm. If it is found that by reason of intoxication the accused was incapable of forming such intent, the offence is manslaughter. The nature of the weapon used may be a circumstance proper to be taken into account when considering the question of capacity to form the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeal — Misdirection — Inevitable Conclusion Test
Where no direction has been given on whether an accused was through drunkenness capable or incapable of forming an intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, a finding of murder will not be upset if it appears that on a right direction the jury must inevitably have come to the same conclusion.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Trial Procedure — Jury Directions — Reading from Textbooks
Courts should not read extracts from textbooks to a jury without explaining the principles of law in simple language and indicating how they apply to the facts of the particular case.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Penal Code s.14(4)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.159

Cases cited (3)

  • R v Noor Mohamed Kanji (4 EACA 34)
  • R v Beard (14 Cr App R 184)
  • R v Meakins (7 C & P 297)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Retief (Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1941) [1941] EACA 71 (1 January 1941)
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.