Chutuwa V. The Queen (1954)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West Africa Court of Appeal
Criminal Law—Murder—Intoxication—Provocation—Criminal Code, section 29 (4), section 318.
Facts
Section 29 (1), (2), and (4) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:—
‘29 (1) Save as provided in this section, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge. ” (2) Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and:—
“(a) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or
(b) the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily
or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.”
( (3) is not relevant.)
“(4) Intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention, specific or
otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence.”
( (5) is not relevant.)
The night before, the appellant suspected his wife of adultery, but peace was restored next morning and drinking began. About noon he went out to water his horse and came back and, finding his wife packing, stabbed her.
His story was that she was throwing his things about and some of them at him, and then he knifed her, after which he went to the village and reported the occurrence. His defence was that he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing. The trial Judge held that section 29 (2) did not apply: he had been drunk but not without his consent, and he did not prove he had been insane at the time by reason of intoxication. He appealed from the conviction of murder.
It was submitted that section 318 (on provocation) should be considered with section 29 (4) (on intoxication negativing intent).
Held
It is only where a person is so drunk as to be incapable of forming the intent essential to the crime charged that section 29 (4) of the Code may be relied upon; if short of that, drunkenness which may lead a person to attack another in, a manner in which no reasonable man would do cannot assist to reduce murder to manslaughter under section 318 of the Code. Here the facts did not bring the case either within section 29 (4) or within section 318 of the Code, and the conviction was right.
Appeal dismissed.
