Wakilii

Rex v Shirazi ('Cr. App. 148-1932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 25 · 1932 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder by the High Court for Zanzibar
Decision
Conviction quashed and new trial ordered

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 held that a confession made to a district officer who exercises entire control of the police force under section 8(3) of the Police Decree is inadmissible in evidence, notwithstanding a saving clause stating that such officer is not deemed a police officer. The term 'police officer' in the Evidence Decree must be construed functionally to mean an officer performing police functions. The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered due to insufficient evidence apart from the inadmissible confession.

Outcome

Conviction quashed and new trial ordered

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murder by the High Court for Zanzibar. The deceased was the appellant's paramour. They were seen together on a Tuesday night at about 7:15 p.m. going towards Ukutini from Ngwachahi. The deceased's body was found the next morning approximately 300 yards from the main road. Items identified as belonging to the appellant, including a blood-stained kikoi and kanzu, were found near the body and under a breadfruit tree on the road between Ngwachani and Ukatini. On 21 April, while in custody at Chake Chake prison, the appellant made a confession to Mr. Saunders Jones, the district officer who was also Deputy Governor of the prison and a Magistrate. Mr. Saunders Jones exercised entire control of the police force in Pemba under section 8(3) of the Police Decree.

Issues

  1. Whether a confession made to a district officer who is by virtue of section 8(3) of the Police Decree (Zanzibar) in entire control of police is admissible in evidence.
  2. Whether the term 'police officer' in section 25 of the Evidence Decree and section 131 of the Criminal Procedure Decree should be construed to include a district commissioner exercising entire control of the police force.
  3. Whether, excluding the inadmissible confession, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for murder.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction quashed.
  • New trial ordered.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Confession to District Officer Exercising Police Control
Where a district officer exercises entire control of the police force by virtue of section 8(3) of the Police Decree, a confession made to such officer is inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of the Evidence Decree, notwithstanding a saving clause in the Police Decree stating that the district officer is not deemed a police officer for purposes of that Decree.
Evidence — Confessions — Statutory Interpretation — Meaning of 'Police Officer'
The term 'police officer' in section 25 of the Evidence Decree and section 131 of the Criminal Procedure Decree must be construed functionally to mean an officer performing the functions of a police officer, not in a strict technical sense, and includes a district commissioner who has entire control of the police force.
Criminal Procedure — Confessions — Recording — Irregularity Cured by Oral Evidence
An irregularity in recording a confession, namely failure to sign the confession itself as required by section 131(2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree, may be cured under section 417 by the magistrate giving oral evidence that the accused made the statement recorded, provided the memorandum under section 131(3) was properly signed.
Criminal Procedure — Examination of Accused — Limits on Judicial Questioning
A trial judge's examination of an accused that amounts to cross-examination exceeds the powers prescribed by section 279 of the Criminal Procedure Decree.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Zanzibar Criminal Procedure Decree s.131
  • Zanzibar Criminal Procedure Decree s.131(2)
  • Zanzibar Criminal Procedure Decree s.131(3)
  • Zanzibar Criminal Procedure Decree s.279
  • Zanzibar Criminal Procedure Decree s.417
  • Police Decree (Zanzibar) s.8(3)
  • Evidence Decree s.25

Cases cited (3)

  • Rex v Haribal (1876) 1 Cal 139
  • Regina v Babu Lal 6 All 509
  • R v Hurubole Chunder 1 Cal 207

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Shirazi ('Cr. App. 148-1932.) [1932] EACA 25 (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.