Wakilii

Rex v Ross (Cr. App. 205-1932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 23 · 1932 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder before the Chief Justice 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

On a trial for murder where the defence is insanity, the accused must satisfy the jury beyond any reasonable doubt that he was insane in the legal sense at the time of committing the act. The presumption of sanity under section 12 of the Penal Code places the burden on the accused to prove legal insanity as defined in section 13. The law in Kenya is the same as the McNaughton Rules in England. The trial judge properly directed the jury and the verdict was reasonable.

Outcome

Conviction for murder upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murdering Miss Keppie on or about 6 October 1932 before the Chief Justice of Kenya sitting with a jury. The defence raised was insanity. According to the appellant's own voluntary statements, while driving with Miss Keppie and Miss Stevenson, Miss Keppie attempted to take his revolver from his pocket. This infuriated him. He stopped the car, dragged Miss Keppie from the vehicle, took her about fifty to sixty paces away, and shot her. Medical evidence was led by Dr. Gordon for the defence suggesting the appellant suffered from mental abnormality. Evidence was also given of the appellant's father's mental instability and cruel character, and of incidents in the appellant's youth suggesting abnormal behaviour, including an incident where he repeatedly stabbed a dead hippopotamus. The jury rejected the defence of insanity and convicted the appellant of murder.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the burden and standard of proof required for the defence of insanity.
  2. Whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the legal test for insanity under sections 12 and 13 of the Penal Code.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in excluding reports of cases from the Journal of Mental Science.
  4. Whether the verdict was unreasonable or against the weight of evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof
On a trial for murder where the defence is insanity, the accused person must satisfy the jury beyond any reasonable doubt that he was insane in the legal sense at the time of committing the act in order to exempt himself from criminal responsibility.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Presumption of Sanity — Sections 12 and 13 of the Penal Code
Section 12 of the Penal Code enacts that every person is presumed to be of sound mind, meaning every person is presumed to be sane. Section 13 defines what legal insanity will afford an excuse or exemption from criminal responsibility. Once the murder is proved, the Crown has discharged its burden and the onus of proving legal insanity rests on the accused.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — McNaughton Rules — Application in Kenya
The law on insanity as a defence to crime in Kenya under sections 12 and 13 of the Penal Code is the same as the rule in McNaughton's case: before a person can rely on a defence of insanity, it must be shown that at the time of committing the act he was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
Evidence — Admissibility — Reports in Scientific Journals — Questions of Law for the Judge
Reports of trials appearing in a scientific journal which do not purport to be reports of cases by a barrister are properly rejected by the trial judge. Reports dealing with questions of law are for the judge and not for the jury.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Insanity Defence — Affirmative Proof Required
Where the defence of insanity is set up, in order to warrant the jury in acquitting the prisoner, it must be proved affirmatively that he is insane. If the fact is left in doubt and the crime charged is proved, it is the jury's duty to convict.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code s.12
  • Penal Code s.13
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.31

Cases cited (16)

  • McNaughton's Case (1843) 1 C. & K. 130
  • Reg v Davis (14 Cox C.C. 563)
  • Rex v. Kay, 14 E. & E. Digest, p. 58
  • Rex v True (1922) 16 Cr. App. R. 164
  • Rex v. Finch, 12 Cox's Criminal Appeal Reports at 78
  • Reg v Stokes (1848) 14 E. & E. Digest 59
  • Rex v Oliver Smith (1910) 6 Cr. App. R. 21
  • Rex v Revere (1909) 2 Cr. App. R. 19
  • Rex v Abramovitch (1912) 7 Cr. App. R. 147
  • Reg v Layton (1849) 4 Cox C.C. 149
  • Reg v Taylor (1869) 11 Cox C.C. 341
  • Rex v Holt (1922) 15 Cr. App. R. 10
  • In re Thomas Jenkins (1919) 2 Cr. App. R. 247
  • Rex v Cosho (1914) 30 T.L.R. 535
  • Rex v. Ware
  • Rex v. Thick

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Ross (Cr. App. 205-1932.) [1932] EACA 23 (1 January 1932)
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.