Wakilii

Uganda v Kobshusheshe Kareveri (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007) (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007)

High Court · [2008] UGHC 137 · 2008 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Trial within a trial on admissibility of charge and caution statement in a criminal prosecution for defilement
Decision
Charge and caution statement admitted as evidence; prosecution permitted to proceed with introducing the statement in the main trial

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 the accused made the charge and caution statement to a police officer of appropriate rank as required by the Evidence Act s.23(1)(a). The court found that alleged prior assaults at a police post and station were too remote to affect the voluntariness of the confession. The statement was made voluntarily without violence, force, threat, inducement or promise and was therefore admissible in evidence.

Outcome

Charge and caution statement admitted as evidence; prosecution permitted to proceed with introducing the statement in the main trial

Facts

The accused, Kobsheshe Kareveri, was arrested on 15 August 2005 and detained as a suspect in a defilement case. On 16 August 2005 at 5:00 p.m., he was brought to the office of D/ASP Gumikiiriza Kalinkuza, the O/C CID Kanungu, for purposes of recording a charge and caution statement. The officer testified that he read the charge under Penal Code Act s.129(1) to the accused, administered the caution in Runyankole (their common vernacular), and the accused then voluntarily gave a statement which was read back to him and which he signed. The accused objected to the statement's admission, claiming he was assaulted at Nyamurama Police Post upon arrest and burnt with a flat iron at Kanungu Police Station before signing the document without knowing its contents out of fear of being burnt again.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused made the charge and caution statement.
  2. Whether the charge and caution statement was made voluntarily or was caused by violence, force, threat, inducement or promise calculated to cause an untrue confession.

Orders

  • The charge and caution statement was made voluntarily.
  • The prosecution is at liberty to introduce the charge and caution statement as evidence.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Procedural Requirements
A confession made by a person in police custody is admissible if made in the immediate presence of a police officer of or above the rank of assistant inspector, as required by Evidence Act s.23(1)(a).
Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Remoteness of Prior Assault
Alleged assaults occurring at a different police facility prior to the recording of a confession, and not undertaken for the purpose of procuring that specific confession, are too remote to vitiate the voluntariness of a statement subsequently made to a different officer at a different location.
Evidence — Confessions — Burden of Proof — Voluntariness
Where an accused alleges that a confession was obtained through violence, force, threat, inducement or promise as contemplated by Evidence Act s.24, the court must have regard to the state of mind of the accused and all the circumstances to determine whether such factors caused or were calculated to cause an untrue confession.
Criminal Procedure — Trial within Trial — Function and Findings
In a trial within a trial on the admissibility of a confession, the court must first determine whether the accused made the statement and second whether it was made voluntarily, free from any improper influence.

Legislation cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kobshusheshe Kareveri (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007) (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007) [2008] UGHC 137 (1 September 2008)
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.