LAWOFEVIDENCECLASSNOTES2019

Introduction
MeaningandPurposeoftheLawofEvidence:
Thelawofevidencedealswithbothpublicandprivatelaw.Itreferstothesta
tementsorcircumstancesthatthecourtusestoproveordisapproveagive
nfactindispute.Itmaybeinformoforaltestimony,surroundingcircumstan
cesoragivencase,documents,photosorphysicalobjects(exhibits).

ThelawofevidenceinUgandaisbasicallygovernedbystatutoryandproce
durallaw.Evidenceasasubjectisbasicallycomposedofthefollowing;

1. Admissibility–Thatis;whatsortofevidencewillcourtallow?
Whatcourtwillallowiswhatisrelevantunderthelawofevidence.

2. Admissionsandconfessions-
Admissionsfallundercivillawwhileconfessionsfallundercriminalla
w.

3. Opinionofexperts-Thatis;evidenceofexperts.

Theotherpartofevidenceconsistsofproofthatis;whatmustbeprovedand
howitmustbeproved.Thelawdealswithfactswhichneedtobeproved.Itco
versdifferentmodesofproofe.g.documentary,oralevidence.

Itfurtherdealswiththeburdenofproofthatis;whoishasthedutyorobligati
ontoprovecertainfactsbothcriminalandcivilcases.

Thelawalsodealswithfactswhichneedtobeproved.Itcoversdifferentmo
desofproofse.g.documentaryororalevidence.Itfurtherdealswiththebur
denofproofi.e.whohasthedutyorobligationtoprovecertainfactsbothincr
iminalandcivilcases.Otherprinciplecoveredbythelawofevidencewhich
affectproofsuchaspresumptionsareallclearlylaiddownintheEvidenceA
ct.

Finallythelawofevidenceunderproofdealswithwitnesses,howtosummo
nthem,theircompetenceandcompatibilityandhowgenerallytheyshould
bedealtwithincourtsoflaw.
ReferenceCases:
1. Kimanivs.Gikanga(1965)E.A735.
2. Ahmedvs.R(1962)E.A345.
3. Kasaijavs.s/oTibagwav.R(1952)Vol.19E.A.C.A265.
4. Singhvs.R(1954)Vol.21E.A.C.A209.
5. Njorogevs.R(1958)E.A624.
6. TheKatikiroofBugandavs.AttorneyGeneral(1959)E.A382.
7. Amkeyov.R(1914).

TheDevelopmentoftheLawofEvidence:
Thediscussionofthelawofevidencepresupposesthatcourtsseektodeter
minefactsbymeansofrationalreasoningorprocesses.Thelawofevidence
likealltheothersoriginatedfromBritain,bythepromulgationofthe1902O
rderincouncil.TheproceduresundertheEvidenceActreplacedthetraditio
nalformssuchastrialbybattleandtrialbyordeal.

Unfortunately,manyoftheseforeignproceduresweretransportedintoth
eprotectoratewithoutfirstconsideringwhethertheywereactuallyinconf
ormitywiththelocalcircumstanceintheprotectorate.

Therulesofevidencewhichwerethusbroughtintooperationlikeallotherru
lesofcommonlawwereelaboratedbyjudgesinthecourseofdecidingissue
sthatwerebroughtforwardbylitigants.Whiletherulesadvancedatthistim
easageneralprincipleofthelawofevidenceistheBestEvidenceRule.

AccordingtoBentham,thelawofevidencedealswithpersuasionconcern
ingtheexistenceofthemattersoffact.Benthamdoesnotconceiveevidenc
easaconceptonlyemployedincourtsoflaw,butasonereliedoninallhuma
nactivitiesbothscientificandnon-scientific.

Accordingtohimtherefore,evidenceisdefinedas“awordofrelationmeani
nganymatteroffacttendency,ordesignofwhichwhenpresentedtothemi
nd,istoproduceapersuasionconcerningtheexistenceofsomematteroffa
ct.”

Evidenceispartofprocedurallaw,inthatitdeterminestheproceduretobef
ollowedinordertoarriveatjustice.AccordingtoSec.52(1)oftheEvidenceA
ct,evidencedenotesthemeaningbywhichanyallegedmatteroffact,thetr
uthofwhichissubmittedtoinvestigationisprovedordisapprovedandinclu
desstatementsbyaccusedpersons,admissions,judicialnotice,presumpt
ionsoflawandobservationsbythecourtinitsjudicialcapacity.

Therulesofevidencenormallyaimatachievingthefollowing:
1. Establishastowhohastheburdenofproofinagivencircumstancesa
ndisthedutyofthepersonbearingthatburdentoprovehisfacts.
2. Rulesofevidencealsoprescribefactswhichmaybeproved,determi
nedoradmitted(relevancyandadmissibility).
3. Theyalsoprescribethestatusofcertainevidencee.g.opinioneviden
ce,characterevidence,confessionsetc.
4. Rulesofevidencefurtherprescribefactswhichareexcludedfromthe
considerationofthecourtse.g.privilegedinformation.
5. Theyprescribemethodsbywhichproofmaybeeffectedandsomeoft
hesearethroughtestimonyofwitness,exhibits,visitsofthescene,o
pinionevidencedocumentaryevidenceetc.
6. Rulesofevidenceprescribetheextentofproofrequiredinaparticula
rcase.
7. Theyalsoprescribetheefficacyofcertainpiecesofevidencee.g.the
weightofproofrequiredincriminalcasesandincivilcasesandmatri
monialcauses.
8. Theruleslookattheeffectofevidenceforinstanceevidenceofachild
oftenderyears,thatoflunatics,andsometimestheyinsistoncorrobo
ration.

Uganda’slawofevidenceisbasicallystatutoryandmostofitisfoundintheE
videnceActCap6oftheLawsofUganda.ThebulkofitwasderivedfromIndia
nEvidenceActof(1782)whichwasanattempttocodifytheEnglishCommo
nLaw.AlthoughourlawofevidenceismodeledontheEnglishcommonlaw,
wehavesomeslightdifferencesbetweentheEnglishcommonlawandtheI
ndianEvidenceActof1872.
AdmissibilityandRelevancy:
Admissibilityreferstotheprocessbywhichcourtswillacceptorrejectparti
cularitemsofevidencedependsonwhethertheyarerelevantornotandwh
ethertheitemsareexcludedbylawfrombeingtakenasevidence.

1.Existenceandnon-existenceoffactorfactinissue:
S.5oftheEvidenceActistotheeffectthatevidencemaybegiveninanysuito
rproceedingoftheexistenceornon-
existenceofeveryfactinissueandsuchotherfactasaredeclaredtoberelev
antbylaw.Thisprovisionissubjecttoanyotherprovisionofthelaw.
(RefertoSection4oftheEvidenceActaswell).AccordingtoSection2oftheA
ct,‘afact’isdefinedtomeanandincludeanything,stateofthings,capable
ofbeingperceivedbythesensesi.e.elementorconditionofwhichapersoni
sconscious.
.
2.Factinissue:
Section2(1)defines‘afactinissue’tomeanandincludeanyfactwhicheit
herbyitselforinconnectionwithothers,theexistenceornonexistence,nat
ureorextentofanyrightliability,ordisability,assertedordenied,inanysuit
orproceedingnecessarilyfollows.

3.Factumprondendsandfactumprobendum:
Factumprobendumreferstotheprinciplefactorfactinissuee.g.inacaseof
murder,deathwillbetheprinciplefact.Ontheotherhandfactumprondend
sreferstootherfactswithevidentialvaluewhichmayhelptoexplainthepri
nciplefactorfactinissue.Forinstanceinacaseofmurderifthereisevidence
thattheaccusedpersonwasseenwithapangaorironbaratthesceneofcri
me,priororafterthecommissionofthecrime.

Relevancy(S.6oftheEvidenceAct):
Relevancyistherelationshipbetweentwofacts,wherebythecourseofeve
nts,onefacteitherbyitselforinconnectionwithotherfacts,provesorrende
rsprobablethepast,presentorfutureexistenceornonexistenceorafactini
ssue.Byvirtueofs.6theEvidenceAct,thelawistotheeffectthatfactsthatca
nbegivenasevidencearethosewhichhavebeendeclaredbytheActtobere
levant.FromSections2-
46,thewordrelevantisconstantlyusedtoandthefactslaiddownunderthe
seprovisions,aretheonewhicharelegallyrelevant.
LegalrelevancyundertheEvidenceActisnotnecessitythesameaslogicalr
elevancyundercommonlaw.Thisisbecauseundercommonlaw,allfactsw
hicharelogicallyrelevantareadmissible.WhereasundertheAct,onlyfact
swhicharedeclaredrelevant,areadmissiblethatiswhySection6specifica
llyprovidesthatnootherfactsshallbeadmissible.Ref.tosec.7-
16EvidenceAct.
RelevancyofFacts:

4.Evidencemaybegivenoffactsinissueandrelevantfacts:
Subjecttoanyotherlaw,evidencemaybegiveninanysuitorproceedingoft
heexistenceornonexistenceofeveryfactinissue,andofsuchotherfactsas
arehereafterdeclaredtoberelevant,andofnoothers.

5.Relevancyoffactsformingpartofthesametransaction:
Factswhich,thoughnotinissue,aresoconnectedwithafactinissueastofor
mpartofthesametransactionarerelevant,whethertheyoccurredatthesa
metimeandplaceoratdifferenttimesandplaces.

6.Factswhicharetheoccasion,causeoreffectoffactsinissue,etc:
Factswhicharetheoccasion,thecauseortheeffect,immediateorotherwis
e,ofrelevantfacts,orfactsinissue,orwhichconstitutethestateofthingsun
derwhichtheyhappened,orwhichaffordedanopportunityfortheiroccurr
enceortransaction,arerelevant.

7.Factsshowingmotiveorpreparation;conductinfluencingorinfl
uencedbyafactinissueorrelevantfact:
(a) Anyfactisrelevantwhichshowsorconstitutesamotiveorprep
arationforanyfactinissueorrelevantfact.

(b) Theconductofanyparty,orofanyagenttoanyparty,toanysuit
orproceeding,inreferencetothatsuitorproceeding,orinreferencet
oanyfactinissueinthesuitorproceedingorrelevanttoit,andthecon
ductofanypersonanoffenceagainstwhomisthesubjectofanyproce
eding,isrelevant,ifthatconductinfluencesorisinfluencedbyanyfac
tinissueorrelevantfact,andwhetheritwaspreviousorsubsequentt
othefactinissueorrelevantfact.

8.Factsnecessarytoexplainorintroducerelevantfacts:
Factsnecessarytoexplainorintroduceafactinissueorrelevantfact,orwhi
chsupportorrebutaninferencesuggestedbyafactinissueorrelevantfact,
orwhichestablishtheidentityofanythingorpersonwhoseidentityisreleva
nt,orfixthetimeorplaceatwhichanyfactinissueorrelevantfacthappened
,orwhichshowtherelationofpartiesbywhomanysuchfactwastransacted
,arerelevantinsofarastheyarenecessaryforthatpurpose.

9.Thingssaidordonebyconspiratorinreferencetocommondesig
n:
Wherethereisreasonablegroundtobelievethattwoormorepersonshave
conspiredtogethertocommitanoffenceoranactionablewrong,anything
said,doneorwrittenbyanyoneofthosepersonsinreferencetotheircomm
onintention,afterthetimewhenthatintentionwasfirstentertainedbyany
oneofthem,isarelevantfactasagainsteachofthepersonsbelievedtobeso
conspiring,aswellasforthepurposeofprovingtheexistenceoftheconspir
acyandforthepurposeofshowingthatanysuchpersonwasapartytoit.

10.Whenfactsnototherwiserelevantbecomerelevant:
Factsnototherwiserelevantarerelevant—

(a) iftheyareinconsistentwithanyfactinissueorrelevantfact;

(b) ifbythemselvesorinconnectionwithotherfactstheymakethe
existenceornonexistenceofanyfactinissueorrelevantfacthighlypr
obableorimprobable.

11.Insuitfordamages,factstendingtoenablethecourttodetermi
neamountarerelevant:
Insuitsinwhichdamagesareclaimed,anyfactwhichwillenablethecourtto
determinetheamountofdamageswhichoughttobeawardedisrelevant.

12.Factsrelevantwhenrightorcustomisinquestion:
(a) Wherethequestionisastotheexistenceofanyrightorcustom,
thefollowingfactsarerelevant—

(b) anytransactionbywhichtherightorcustominquestionwascre
ated,claimed,modified,recognised,assertedordenied,orwhichwa
sinconsistentwithitsexistence;
(c)particularinstancesinwhichtherightorcustomwasclaimed,recogn
isedorexercised,orinwhichitsexercisewasdisputed,assertedorde
partedfrom.
13.Factsshowingexistenceofstateofmindorofbodyorbodilyfeel
ing:
Factsshowingtheexistenceofanystateofmind,suchasintention,knowle
dge,goodfaith,negligence,rashness,illwillorgoodwilltowardsanypartic
ularperson,orshowingtheexistenceofanystateofbodyorbodilyfeeling,a
rerelevant,whentheexistenceofanysuchstateofmindorbodyorbodilyfe
elingisinissueorrelevant.

14.Factsbearingonquestionofwhetheractwasaccidentalorinte
ntional:
Whenthereisaquestionofwhetheranactwasaccidentalorintentional,ord
onewithaparticularknowledgeorintention,thefactthatsuchactformedp
artofaseriesofsimilaroccurrences,ineachofwhichthepersondoingtheac
twasconcerned,isrelevant.

15.Existenceofcourseofbusiness,whenrelevant:
Whenthereisaquestionwhetheraparticularactwasdone,theexistenceof
anycourseofbusiness,accordingtowhichitnaturallywouldhavebeendon
e,isarelevantfact.

Cases:
● Karumavs.R(1955)Vol.22EACA364.
● RamathanIsmaelvs.Republic(1972)TLR36.

ThegeneralprinciplesofRelevancyandAdmisibilityofEvidence:

ThegeneralprincipleoftheLawofEvidenceonrelevancyandadmissibilityi
sthatonceevidenceisadmissible,themethodofitsprocurementdoesnot
matterwhetherstolen.Themannerofgettingtheevidenceisimmaterial.E
videncemaynotberejectedonthegroundthatitwasillegallyobtained.E.gi
nacaseofmurderusingagunifthepolicesearchesandvandalizedthehous
eoftheaccusedtogetthegunandfinallyitisrecovered,theaccusedmayno
tpleadrightofprivacyorotherbreachesofrights.

See:KarumaS/oKanuivsUganda1955Vol.22EACA364.
Inthiscaseasearchwasconductedbythepolicewithoutasearchwarrant.E
videncewassubsequentlyobtainedillegally.Intheprocessofthesearchso
meincriminatingevidencewasrecoveredfromtheappellantandtendere
dinevidence.Onappeal,theappellantarguedthatsuchevidenceshouldn
othavebeenadmittedbecauseitwasillegallyobtained.OnappealthePriv
yCouncil,heldthatthemethodofobtainingevidenceisirrelevant.Thatwh
atisimportantisthatevidencewasobtained.

NB:
Thisruledoesnotapplytoconfessionswhichmustbelegallyandvoluntaril
ygiven.RefertoGopa&OrsvsR.

AdmissibleEvidence:
Resgestaeisusedtoconnoteacts,declarations,andcircumstancesconsti
tuting,accompanyingorexplainingafactortransactioninissue.Inlaw,the
reisalwaysaprinciplefactorfactinissuefactumprobendum,andwhatcon
stitutestheresgestaearethoseotherfactswhichareinarelationshipwitht
hefactinissue.ThegeneralprinciplesofresgestaeareincorporatedinSect
ions5to16oftheEvidenceAct.

RvsKurjiVol7EACA58.Inthiscasetheaccusedstabbedthedeceased’sb
rotherandimmediatelyafterhewasseeninthego-
downofaneighboringshopstandingoverthedeceasedholdingaknife.Co
urtheld:that,thetwocircumstancesweresointerconnectedthatthewoun
dingofthedeceased’sbrothermustberegardedaspartofresgestae,atthe
trialoftheaccusedforthemurderofthedeceased,andtheevidenceofitwa
sadmissible.

GeneralelementsofResGestae:
● Thestatementordeclarationmustexplainthemaineventofthefacti
nissue.

● Thestatementordeclarationmustbenaturalgrowingoutoftheeven
tsandmustnotbeamerenarrationofpastevents.i.e.Theincidentcla
imedtobepartofresgestaemustnothaveoccurredafterthetransact
ion.

Someaspectsofresgestae:
1.Factsformingthesametransaction-Sec5:
Thesectionistotheeffectthatfactsthoughnotinissue,whicharesoconnec
tedwiththefactsinissueastoformpartofthesametransaction,arerelevan
twhethertheyoccurredatthesametimeandplaceoratdifferenttimesand
places.Heretheprinciplefactcomesaboutasaresultofatransactionwhich
canbeexplainedbysecondaryfactsandthisiswhatiscalledresgestae.
Undersection5,factsformingthesametransactionwillonlyberelevantfor
purposesofexplainingthefactinissue.Thissectionisapplicableinbothcivi
landcriminalcases.

2.Factswhicharetheoccasion,causeoreffectforthefactsinissue-
Sec6:

Thissectionistotheeffectthatfactswhicharetheoccasioncauseoreffecti
mmediatelyorotherwiseofrelevantfacts,orfactsinissueorwhichconstitu
tethestateofthings,underwhichtheyhappened,orwhichtheyaffordedan
opportunityfortheiroccurrence,arerelevant.

Case:Rvs.CliffordBrabiCastaVol14EACA80.Inthiscasetheappellan
twaschargedwithobtainingabribe.Theprosecutionadducedevidenceto
showthattheappellanthadengagedinpreviousactsofbribery.Themajori
ssuewaswhetherornotevidenceofpreviousactsofbriberywasrelevant.It
washeldamongothersthattheevidenceofpreviousactsofbriberywasad
missiblebecauseitshowedthestateofthingsexplainingthefactinissue.T
hecaseindicatedthatpreviousconspiracycouldbetakenintoaccounttoe
stablishtheoccurrenceofthings.Theactstalkedaboutinsection6,should
haveproximityintermsoftime.Theyshouldhappenalmostatthesametim
eimmediatelybeforeorafter.

3.Motivepreparation,previousorsubsequentconductaspartofr
esgestae-Sec

Allthesearedealtwithundersection7oftheEvidenceAct.Motiveiswhatac
tuallyinfluencesapersontoactinaparticularway.Itmaybefearofthedesir
ewhichbringsaboutaparticularactivity.Ifyouwanttoestablishmotiveyou
maylookatthementalstateusuallyderivedfromthecircumstancesurrou
ndingthefactinissuee.gthroughonesutterances,itmaybegooddependin
gonthecircumstances,butthemeansmaybeand
MakaindivsR,evidenceofpreviousbeatingwasadmittedtendingtoshow
motiveforrevengeitshowedill-
will,itamountedtopreviousconductanditshowedcausationofacommissi
onoftheoffence.

4.Previousconduct:
(thisisconductbeforetheactualfactinissueiscommitted).Itmayaswellin
cludemotivetocommitanoffencebutitcouldmeansthewaysofbringinga
particularfactinissueandmayinvolvepreparationofopportunityorbringi
ngabouttheactscomplains.Itincludespreviousactstocommittheoffence
andmayincludedeclarationofintentorthreats.

InLobovsRVol.10KLR555itwasheldamongothersthatcomplainantso
frapeandthelikeoffencesifmadeatthefirstreasonableopportunityaftert
hefirstreasonableopportunityaftertheoffencehadbeencommittedarea
dmissible.Thisisbecauseinsuchastatetheyareindicativeofthecomplain
ant’sstateofmindandthereforethecomplaint’sconductandthereforefor
mpartofresgestae.
G
5.Subsequentconduct:
Thismayexplaintheoccurrenceoftheeventi.e.whatthepersondoes,the
wayhebehavessoonafterthecrime,andwhatstateofmindheisin.Itmayus
edtoimplicatehiminthecommissionofthecrimeforinstance;certainchan
gesinlifestylemaybeexplainedbyillegalacquisitionofwealth.Insomecas
essilencewhenaccused,givingfalsestatements,evasiveorinconsistente
xplanations,mayamounttosubsequentconduct.
Consider:
1.Ugandavs.Twikirize(1985)HCB37
2.UgandavsAbdulNassur(1982)HCB1
3.UgandavsSsali(1981)HCB41
4.RvsKariaVol16EACA116

6.Identity:
Anyfactwhichshowstheidentityofanythingisarelevantfact.Identificatio
nofathingorapersonisanexpressionofanopinionthatthatthingorpersonr
esemblesanothersomuchthatitislikelytobethesamethingorperson.Ide
ntificationisthereforeaquestionofcomparisontofindoutresemblance.If
acrimeiscommitteditmustbeestablishedthattheaccusedpersonorthes
uspectistheonewhocommittedit.refertoAbdulBinWendovsR.
(thecasediscussestherulesofconductinganidentificationparade).

7.Timeandplace:
Normallythetimeatwhichaparticularcrimewascommittedmaynotbema
terialbutitmaybeimportanttoestablishelementsofacrime.E.gintheoffe
nceofburglarytheprosecutionitmustbeprovedthatitwascommittedatni
ghtwhilethreatofhousebreakingmustbecommittedduringtheday.

Timeisalsoimportantinestablishingwhetheraparticularpersoncommitt
edacrimeornot.Forinstanceifitisshownthataparticularpersoncouldnoth
avecommittedacrimebecausehewasphysicallyunable.E.g.thathewasn
otatthesceneofthecrime.i.e.thatisthedefenseofalibi.
ThecaseofKamyaWavamunovsUgandainvolvingbankrobbery,thea
ccusedpleadedalibiandtendereddocumentaryevidenceinformofapass
portdulyendorsedwithavisa,whichevidencepointedtothefactthathewa
satthetimeinKenyahavingcrossedtheUganda-
KenyabordermuchearlierbeforetheoccurrenceofthecrimeofrobberyItw
ashoweverlaterdiscoveredthattheaccusedhadactuallyforgedthevisast
ampinthepassport.Theaccusedwasconvicted.
Timewillberelevantasanaspectofresgetae.

8.Commonintention:S.9EvidenceAct:
Thisisrelatestoconspiracieswheretwoormorepersonsagreetocommita
noffence.Itbecomesanoffenceatthetimeofagreement.AndunderS.9oft
heEvidenceActwheretwoormorepartiesconspiretocommitacrime,anyt
hingdoneorsaidbythesepartiesisarelevantfactagainstallthepersonswh
oarepartiestotheconspiracy.
RvsBrakeTye1884vol6QBD126.

9.Sanity:
Thismaybeimportante.g.incasesofsuccessionwheresanityofthetestato
rmaybecalledintoquestionchallenginghiswill.

10.Knowledge:
Sometortandcontractcaserequireknowledgeandthereforeitmayberele
vantforpurposesofdeterminingliabilityofaperson.Forinstanceinacaseo
fliabilityfordangerousanimalsifyouknowthatyouhaveadogandithasthe
propensitytobite,eventhoughitisnotclassifiedasbeingnaturallydanger
ous,theownerwillbeliableifthedogcauseshavoc.Incontractcases,guiltw
illbeimputedifthepartiesknowthattheywerecontractingforanillegalpur
pose.

10.Intention:
Intentionisrelevantinbothcriminalandcivilcases.E.g.mensreaincrimina
lcases.Inbankruptcyasacivilcasekeepinghouseforfraudulenttransferof
propertymayhavetheunderlyingintentionofdefraudingthecreditors.

11.Goodfaithorbadfaith:
Incasewheremaliceorfraudarealleged,thengoodfaithorbadfaitharerele
vant.
Case:OkethiOkaleandOrsvs.Republic[1965]1EA555.

STATEOFMINDORBODILYFEELING
Thisisprovidedforundersection13oftheEvidenceAct.Apersonmaybring
aboutparticularactsormaycommitaparticularcrimebecauseofthestate
ofhismind.Thementalelementincrime,tortandotherlegalconceptionsof
tenbecomesarelevantfactinissue.Incertaincrimesforexample,itmaybe
necessarytoprovemensreawhileincertaintorts,itmaybenecessarytopr
oveknowledgeornegligence.

Section13providesthatfactsshowingtheexistenceofanystateofmindors
howingtheexistenceofanystateofmindorbodilyfeelingarerelevantwhe
ntheexistenceofanysuchstateofmindorbodyorbodilyfeelingisinissueor
relevant.

Stateofmindunderthesectioncanincludeintentionorsanity,knowledgef
orexamplethatparticularactionswillresultinparticularconsequences,g
oodorbadfaithandrashnessornegligence.

Underthesectiontherefore,allevidencewhichmaydiscloseanyoftheabo
veisrelevant.

However,astateofmindmustbeshowntoexistinreferencetoaparticulars
tateofthingsoractivity.Inotherwords,thatstateofmindmustbespecificto
aparticularactivity.Thesectionexplainsthatafactthatisrelevantasshowi
ngtheexistenceofastateofmindmustshowthatthestateofmindexistsnot
generallybutinreferencetoaparticularmatterinquestion.

Thesectionmakesrelevantevidenceofabodilyfeelingi.e.anythingthatca
nbephysicallyfeltbyapersoninasfarasitmayrelatetotheoccurrenceofap
articularaction.

Sanity

UnderCriminallaw,sanityisrelevanttoprovetheguiltorotherwiseofanac
cusedpersonortoshowcriminalliability.

Insuccessionmatters,sanityisrelevanttoconsiderthevalidityofawill.

Knowledge

Knowledgecanberelevanttorebutthedefenceofaccident.Insometortorc
ontractcases,knowledgeisaprerequisiteindeterminingliability.Tortsinv
olvingliabilityfordangerousanimalswillnormallytakeintoaccountknowl
edgeoftheferocityofthoseanimalsandifpartiesknowthattheyarecontra
ctingforanillegalpurpose,thatcontractwillbevoidbecauseoftheknowled
getheyhad.

Intention
Intentionwillberelevantinbothcivilandcriminalmatters.Similarly,illwilla
ndgoodwillalsoberelevantinbothcivilandcriminalmattersandsowillevid
enceoffraudormalice.

RvGodfrey

Facts:TheappellantwasconvictedoftwooffencesundertheTrafficOrdin
ance.Evidencewasallowedtobegivenatthetrialtoshowthathehadconsu
medalcoholbeforethecommissionoftheallegedoffence.Thisevidencew
asobjectedtoandoneoftheissueswaswhetheritshouldhavebeenadmitt
ed.

Held:Onachargeofcarelessordangerousdriving,evidencethatanaccus
edhasconsumedacertainamountofalcoholduringacertainperiodisadmi
ssibleunderS14oftheIndianEvidenceAct(equivalenttoS14oftheUEA)no
tasevidencethathehascommittedsomeothercrimewithwhichheisnotch
argedbutastendingtoshowhisprobablementalandphysicalconditionata
subsequenttimewhensuchconditionmaybehighlyrelevanttotheissuea
stowhethersuchpersonhasexerciseddueandpropercare.

Kiwanuka&AnothervR

Facts:Theplaintiffswereconvictedontwocountsofpublishingdefamator
ymaterialconcerningachief.Oneoftheissueswaswhetherornotthesetw
oactedmaliciously.

Held:InacaseofCriminallibel,evidenceofsuppressionofmattersfavoura
bletothepersonlibelledwasadmissibletoshowmaliceonthepartoftheacc
usedi.e.itshowsthestateofmindoftheaccusedatthetimeofpublicationa
ndinthiscase,theaccusedhadomittedthegoodthingsaboutthechief.

AkrabivR

Facts:Theaccusedwaschargedwithuseofcriminalforcewithintenttoout
ragethemodestyoftwoboys.Theaccusedwasaheadmasterinaschoolwh
ichtheboysattended.Theboystestifiedthatonemorningandatshortinter
valswhentheywentotheappellant’sroom,theappellanttookholdoftheir
handswithouttheirconsentandrubbedthemupanddownagainsthispeni
s.Therewasnocorroborationofthisevidencebuttheprosecutioncalledthr
eeotherboysinthesameformasthecomplainantswhogaveevidencethat
theappellanthadonpreviousoccasionsdonetothemexactlythesamethin
gaswhathehaddonetothecomplainants.Thetrialmagistrateadmittedthi
sevidenceandonappealtheappellantclaimedthatthisevidenceshouldn
othavebeenadmitted.

Held:Evidenceofsimilaroffencesnotchargedisadmissibleunders.14tos
howtheintentionoftheappellantandunders.15torebutthedefenceofacci
dentormistakeandthatinthiscasethatevidenceshowedtheintentionoft
heappellanttooutragethemodestyoftheboysandtorebuttheappellant’s
defencethattheboyswereliars.

SIMILARFACTSOROCCURRENCES
Section14providesforevidenceofsimilarfactsoroccurrences.Underthes
ection,allevidencewhichestablisheswhetherornotaparticularactwasac
cidentalisadmissible.Thesectionprovidesthatwhenthereisaquestionw
hetheranactwasaccidentalornotordonewithaparticularknowledgeorint
ention,thefactthatsuchactformedpartofaseriesofsimilaroccurrencesin
eachofwhichthepersondoingtheactwasconcernedisrelevant.
Evidenceofsimilarfactsgenerallyreferstotherulethatacourtcanusepast
similaroccurrencesrelatingtoaparticularpersontoestablishwhetherape
rsonisguiltyornotorwhetherheorsheisliableinacivilaction.

Thisruleproceedsonthebeliefthatpersonsdonoteasilychangetheirhabit
sandthatiftheyareshowntohavedonesimilaractsinthepast,thentheyar
elikelytorepeatthem.

ThegeneralprinciplewasstatedbythePrivyCouncilinthefollowingtermsi
nthecaseof:

MakinvAttorneyGeneralofNewSouthWales[1894]AC57at65

“Itisundoubtedlynotcompetentfortheprosecutiontoadduceevid
encetendingtoshowthattheaccusedhasbeenguiltyofcriminalact
sotherthanthosecoveredbytheindictmentforthepurposeofleadi
ngtotheconclusionthattheaccusedisapersonlikelyfromhiscrimin
alconductorcharactertohavecommittedtheoffenceforwhichheis
beingtried.Ontheotherhand,themerefactthattheevidenceadduc
edtendstoshowthecommissionofothercrimesdoesnotrenderitin
admissibleifitberelevanttoanissuebeforethejury,anditmaybesor
elevantifitbearsuponthequestionwhethertheactsallegedtocons
titutethecrimechargedintheindictmentweredesignedoraccident
alortorebutthedefencewhichwouldotherwisebeopentotheaccus
ed.”

ThePrivyCouncilheldthatevidenceofpastsimilaractsisadmissiblebutlai
ddownexceptionstothatgeneralrule.

Assuch,itisnotcompetentforapersontoprovehiscaseonthebasisofpasts
imilaractswhichtheaccusedmayhavedone.Howeversuchevidencemay
beadmittedwhereitissoughttoprovewhethertheactwasaccidentalorint
entionalortorebutthedefenceforexampleofmistakenidentification.

RvSmith

Facts:Theaccusedwaschargedwiththemurderofawomanwhowasfoun
ddrownedinabathtub.Itwasmadetolookasifthewomandiedinanepilepti
cfitbutevidenceonrecordshowedthattheaccusedhad,justbeforethewo
man’sdeath,encouragedhertomakefinancialarrangementsinhisfavour
.Hedeniedthechargeclaimingthatherdeathwasaccidentalarisingfroma
fitofepilepsy.Evidencewasadmittedthattwootherwomenhaddiedinsimi
larcircumstancesaftertheaccusedhadgonethroughformsofmarriagewi
ththeminturnandaftereachofthemhadmadefinancialarrangementsinh
isfavour.Hechallengedtheadmissionofthisevidenceandonappealtheiss
uewaswhetherevidenceoftheothertwodeathswasrightlyadmitted.

Held:Evidenceofsimilaractswasadmissibletoshowtheguiltyintentofth
eaccusedandtorebutthedefenceofaccident.Thatthechallengedeviden
cewasadmissiblebothtoshowthatwhathappenedinthecaseofthefirstwo
manwasnotanaccidentandalsotoshowtheintentionwithwhichtheaccus
eddidwhathedid.

Thesameissuewasdiscussedin:

JohnMakindivR

Held:Evidenceofpreviousbeatingswasrelevantandadmissibletoexplai
nandsubstantiatethecauseofdeathandtoshowthemotiveoftheappellan
tforrevengeonthedeceasedi.e.itwasrelevanttorebutthedefenceofacci
dentwhichtheappellanthadputup.

MoodMusicPublishingCo.vDeWolfe

Facts:Theplaintiffsownedacopyrighttoamusicalwork.Thedefendantsi
ssuedamusicalworkforuseinaTVplayandtheplaintiffsclaimedthatthatw
orkinfringedthecopyrightintheirwork.Thedefendantsconcededasimila
rityinbetweentheirworkandtheplaintiff’sworkbuttheyclaimedthatthiss
imilaritywasmerelycoincidental.Atthetrial,theplaintiffsadducedeviden
cetoshowthatthedefendantshadinthepastpublishedmusicalworkssimil
artootherpeople’sworks.Thedefendantschallengedtheadmissibilityoft
hisevidenceandtheissuewaswhethersuchevidenceshouldhavebeenad
mitted.

Held:Incivilcases,courtswouldadmitevidenceofsimilaractsifitwaslogic
allyprobativeandifitwasnotoppressiveorunfairtotheothersidetoadmitt
heevidence.Thatsincethecasefocusedonwhetherthesimilaritybetwee
nthetwoworkswasamerecoincidenceortheresultofcopyingbythedefen
dants,thentheevidenceprocuredbytheplaintiffsconcerningtheotherthr
eecaseswasofsufficientprobateweighttorenderitadmissible.

HarrisvDPP(1952)AC57

Facts:Theaccusedwaschargedwitheightlarceniesofmoneycommitted
inMay,JuneandJuly1951fromacertainofficeinanenclosedmarketattime
swhenmostofthegateswereshutandtheaccused,apoliceofficer,mighth
avebeenonsolitarydutythere.Ineachcase,thesamemeansofaccesswer
eusedandonlypartoftheamountwhichmighthavebeentakenwastaken.
Notheftsoccurredwhiletheaccusedwasonleave.Theaccusedwasfound
bytwodetectivesintheimmediatevicinityoftheofficeatthetimeofthelastl
arceny.Thoughtheywerewellknowntohim,heavoidedthemforaperiods
ufficienttohidemarkedmoneytakenfromtheofficetill.Themoneywasfou
ndinacoalbinwherehewasfirstseen.Theaccusedwasconvictedononlyth
eeighthcount.Heappealedagainstconvictiontothecourtofcriminalappe
alunsuccessfullyandtotheHouseofLordssuccessfullyonthegroundthate
videnceofthefirstseventheftswasirrelevanttotheeighth.Thecourtlaidd
owntheprinciplesinMarkin’scase[supra].

Held:ViscountSimon-

“Evidenceof‘similarfacts’cannotinanycasebeadmissibletosupp
ortanaccusationagainsttheaccusedunlesstheyaresoconnected
insomerelevantwaywiththeaccusedandwithhisparticipationint
hecrime...Butevidenceofotheroccurrenceswhichmerelytendto
deepensuchsuspiciondoesnotgotoproveguilt.”

TheViscountaddedthatitisnotaruleoflawgoverningtheadmissibilityofe
videncebutaruleofjudicialpracticefollowedbyajudgewhoistryingachar
georcrimewhenhethinkstheapplicationofthepracticeiscalledfor.

Suchevidenceisadmissibleifitisadducedtoproveasystemfollowedbythe
accused,torebutadefenceofaccidentormistake,torebutadefenceofinn
ocentintent,toshowviciousornaturalpropensity,ortoproveidentityinap
articularoffencesoastonegativetheclaimofmistakenidentification.

RvScarrot

Facts:Theappellantwaschargedwithsevencountsofcommittingoffenc
esagainstyoungboysandthecountsincludedburglary,attemptedburgla
ryandindecentassaultonseveralboys.Theappellantapplied,amongothe
rthings,tohavesimilarfactsevidencethrownoutbythecourt.Thisapplicat
ionwasoverruledandsimilarfactsevidencewasallowed.Onappeal,

Issue:Whetherthesimilarfactevidenceadducedhadprobatevaluewhic
hwassufficientlypositivetoassistcourtindeterminingwhethertheoffenc
ewascommittedbytheaccusedandwhatthetestforadmissibilityofsimila
rfactsevidencewas.

Held:Thetestfortheadmissibilityofsimilarfactsevidencewasoneofstriki
ngsimilarityorsimilarities.Suchevidencehadtorevealanunderlinedlinkb
etweenthematterswithwhichitdealtandtheallegationsagainstthedefen
dantonthecountunderconsiderationbutthatitsadmissibilitydependedn
otonwhetheritwascapableofshowingcorroborationoftheevidenceofthe
victimoraccomplicebutonitsprobatevalue.Inotherwordswhetherlogica
llyconsidereditpossessedprobatevaluesufficientlypositivetoassistcour
tindeterminingwhethertheoffencechargedagainsttheaccusedhadbee
ncommittedbyhim.Thatintheinstantcase,thesimilarfactevidenceaddu
cedhadapositiveprobatevaluecontaining,asitdid,strikingsimilaritiesw
hichtakentogetherwereinexplicableonthebasisofcoincidenceandthatt
hejudgehadbeenrighttoadmitsuchevidence.

HalesvKerr[1908]2KB601

Facts:Abarberallowedtheplaintifftobeshavedwithanuncleanrazorandi
twastherebyallegedthatthisnegligentlycausedtheplaintifftobeinfected
withringworms.Evidencethatotherpersonssoshavedinbarber’sshopsh
adcontractedthatdiseasewasadmittedandthecourtheldthatthateviden
cewenttoestablishtheexistenceofadangerouspracticecarriedoninthed
efendant’sestablishmenti.e.itshowedasystemwherethedefendantwas
negligentorlackedaproperhygienicsystemtoensurethathisclientsdidn
otcontactthedisease.

HEARSAYEVIDENCE

AccordingtoS.60EvidenceAct,itisprovidedthatthecontentsofadocume
ntmaybeprovedeitherbyprimaryorsecondaryevidence.S.59istotheeffe
ctthatoralevidencemustinallcasebedirecti.e.ifitreferstoafactwhichwas
seenbyawitness,itmustbethatpersonwhosawit,butnotsomeonewhowa
stold.Ifitreferstoafactwhichcouldbeheard,thenitmustbetheevidenceof
awitnesswhosaysheheardit.Ifitreferstoafactwhichcouldbeperceivedby
anyothersenseorinanyothermannerthenitmustbebythewitnesswhope
rceivedthefact.Ifitreferstoanopinionoronthegroundsuponwhichtheopi
nionwasheldthenitmustbeevidenceofthatperson,whoactuallyholdsthe
opinionandthosegrounds.
ItisthereforeclearinS.59oftheEvidenceActthatthelawonlyadmitsdirect
evidence,andbyexclusionwhateverisleftoutishearsay.Therationalefor
admittingdirectevidenceisthatitistheBestevidenceascomparedtohear
sayevidence.TheEvidenceActdoesnotdefinehearsayevidencebutthei
mplicationsofsections58,59and60giveinferencethathearsayevidencei
sexcludedandcannotthereforebeadmitted.

Undercommonlaw,hearsayhasbeendefinedasathirdperson’sassertion
snarratedtothecourtbyawitnessforthepurposeofestablishingthetruth,
ofthatwhichwasasserted.Itthereforeleavesoutthefactthattheassertion
wasactuallymade.Thefollowingmaybesaidabouthearsayevidence;

1. Itmaybeoralorwritten.

2. Thestatementinpointmusthavebeenmadebyapersonwhohimselfisn
otbeforecourt.

3. Thepurposeofthestatementallegedtobehearsaymustbetoprovewha
twassaidorwritten;i.e.thepurposeistoprovethetruthoftheassertiona
ndnotthattheassertionwasmade.

Oralorwrittenstatements:

Case:Chandvasekeravs.R(1937)AC220.
Inamurdertrial,evidencewasgiventotheeffectthatthevictimwasunable
tospeakatthetimeofherdeathbecauseofthewoundswhichhadbeeninflic
tedonherhowevershemanagedtoindicatetothepeoplearoundbynoddin
gherheadwhenaskedwhohadcutherthroat.Amongtheissuewaswhethe
rthisevidencewasinitselfinadmissibleandwhetherevidenceofconductw
hichwasneitherwrittennororalcouldbeadmitted.

Itwasheldinteralia,thattheevidencewasadmissibleasanexceptiontohe
arsayinthatitamountedtoadyingdeclaration.Thatconductmayattimesb
eamodeofcommunicationwhichmayeitherbehearsayordirectevidence
whichcouldbeadmissible.

Statementsofpeoplewhothemselvesarenotwitnessbeforecour
t.
Suchmayinclude:
1. Statementsofpartiestosuitsbutwhichweremadeoutofcourt.Thesest
atementsmaybeadmissibleiftheyformpartofresgestae.

2. Astatementmayamounttohearsayonlyifitisintroducedforthepurpos
eofestablishingthetruthofanearlierstatement,forinstanceincasewh
ereparticularwordswerespokenofwrittene.g.indefamationcase,cas
esoforalcontracts,undueinfluence,intimidationandmisrepresentati
on.Insuchcase,dependingonwhatthecourtislookingfor,whatwasspo
kenwillnotamounttohearsayifrepeatedbysomeotherperson.

InthecaseofSubraminiumvs.DPP(1995)Vol1WLR965,theaccused
waschargedwithbeinginillegalpossessionofammunitioncontrarytoEm
ergenceRegulationsobtaininginMalaysiaandhisdefensewashecameint
opossessionandwasforcedtheweaponsunderduress.Hewantedtoaddu
cethewordswhichwareusedbytheterroristtoestablishduress.Thiswasre
jectedbythetrialjudgeashearsayevidence.ThecourtofAppealheldthatit
isonlyhearsayifisitadducedforthepurposeofestablishingthetruthofwha
twasspokenanditwouldnotbehearsayifitadducedifisadducedtoestablis
hthatthefactwasmade.

Theruleagainsthearsayisexclusiveandsuchevidenceisnotadmissibleei
therincivilorincriminalproceedings.

InRvs.Gibson(1937)18QBD537,theaccusedwasindictedfortheoffen
ceofwillfulwoundingamountingtogrievousbodilyharm.Hewasallegedto
havethrownastoneatthecomplainant’shouse.Evidencefortheprosecuti
onwasthatimmediatelyafterthecomplainantwashitbythestone,awoma
nnearbybypointedattheaccusedperson’shouseandsaid;“thepersonwh
othrewthestonewentinthere”.Theaccusedwasarrestedonthebasisofth
atevidence.Hewastriedandconvictedandheappealedonthegroundthat
,thatwashearsayevidencebecausethatparticularwomanwasnotcalleda
sawitness.Itwasheldamongothersthat;thewoman’sevidencewashears
ayandshouldnothavebeenadmittedthereforewhenhandlinghearsayevi
dence,courthasthediscretiontoexcludeitrightfromthebeginningofthep
roceedings.

Partiestothecasemayalsoraiseobjectionstothatwhichisbeingadduced.
InthecaseofR.vs.Sparks(1964)A.C964,theappellant(awhiteman)wa
sindictedforindecentassaultofagirlagedbetween3to4years.Shortlyafte
rtheassault,achildwhowasnotawitnessatthetrialtoldthemotherthatisw
asa“coloured”boywhohadassaultedthevictim.Thedefenceobjectedtot
hemothergivingsuchevidencebecauseshewasonlyrepeatingwhatanot
herpersonhadtoldher.Onappeal,theconvictionwassetasideonthegrou
ndsthemothersevidencewashehearsay.

Hearsayevidencewillstillbeexcludedevenifithasahighevidentialvalue.I
nR.v.Turner(1957)AC957,athirdpersonwhowascalledasawitnessha
dconfessedtohavingcommittedthecrimeforwhichtheaccusedwasbein
gtried.Thisevidencewasadducedatthetrialbythedefensebutcourtrejec
tedit,onthegroundthatitwashearsay.

THERATIONALEFORTHEHEARSAYRULE

Thefollowingaresomeofthereasonswhyhearsayevidenceshouldbereje
cted:

1. Thepersonmakingitcannotbepresenttobecrossexaminedtoestab
lishedtheveracityofthestatementandassuchthepersonwhorepor
tstocourtmaydosocarelessly.

2. Thereisalikelihoodofdistortionoftheoriginalstatement.Itmaybet
wisteddependingontheinterestsofthewitness.

3. Thereislackofopportunityofjudgingthepowerofperceptionofthep
ersonwhomadethestatement.Forinstance,hemaynothavehadth
ecapacitytomemorize.

4. Itisnotpossibletoestablishthemeaningofthewordsusedbecauset
hethirdpartymayhaveusedthewordsinaspecialsenseandthepers
onreportingmaypickafalsemeaning;
5. Thereisnoopportunitytojudgethedemeanorofthepersonwhomad
ethestatement.Thepersonwhomadethestatementmayhavebeen
contradictory,shy,evasive,rude,e.t.cbutthiscannotbeascertaine
dbycourt.Secondlyhistonemayaffectthemeaningofthewords.
 6. Admissionofhearsayevidenceislikelytoleadtoprotractedlitigation
becausetheremightnoendrepeatingwhatwassaid.

7. Itmaydefeattheefficiencyofinvestigationsastheremaybenoendto
it.

8. Ithasthetendencytosurprisetheopponentandthisaccordingtothel
awisdeemedtobeanunfairadvantage.

EXCEPTIONSTORULEAGAINSTHEARSAY:

Despitetheexistenceofreasonswhichjustifytheexclusionofhearsayevid
ence,situationariseswherepracticehasshownthatexcludingsuchevide
ncemayleadtoinjustice.Thesearesituationswherecourtsareforcedtorel
yonhearsayevidencebecausethereisnosubstituteandbecausetoexclud
eitwoulddefeattheendsofjustices.Commonlawthusdevelopedaserieso
fexceptionstotheruletocaterforsuchsituations.Manyoftheseexception
sarenowcontainedintheEvidenceAct.Theseinclude:

1. Dyingdeclarations
Undersection30oftheEvidenceActitisprovidedthatstatementswhichar
ewrittenororalofrelevantfactsmadebyapersonwhoisnowdeadarethem
selvesrelevantinanumberofsituations:

Whenastatementismadebyapersonastothecauseofhis/
herdeathorastoanyorthecircumstancesofthetransactionwhichresulte
dintohis/
herdeath,incasesinwhichthecauseofdeathofthatpersoncomesintoque
stion,anditisimmaterialwhetherornotthatpersonwasimmediateexpect
ationofdeath.Adyingdeclarationisthereforeastatementutteredbyadec
easedpersonthepurposeofwhichistoestablishthecauseofdeathofthatp
erson.Normally,thiswouldbehearsay,butitisoneoftheexceptionstotheh
earsayruleprovidedforunderS.30oftheEvidenceAct.

Forcourttorelyonanactforevidenceofadyingdeclarationhereisneedforc
orroboration.Ref:Jasungavs.R.21EACA331.Wherecourtheldamong
othersthat,inallcasewheredyingdeclarationsareused,courtshavealwa
ysinsistedoncorroborativeevidence.Theneedforsuchcorroborationwill
alwaysbethereunlesstherewasclearevidencethatthedeceasedcouldno
thavebeenmistakenabouttheidentityofhiskiller.Alsorefer:Mibingavs.
Uganda(1965)EA71.

2. Statementsmadeintheordinarycourseofbusiness
Undersection30(b),statementsmadebyadeceasedpersonoranyotherp
ersonintheordinarilycourseofbusiness,areadmissibleasanexceptionto
thegeneralruleagainsthearsayevidence.Thesearestatementsmadeas
partofaperson’susualworkbyvirtueofone’semployment,capacityorprof
ession.Suchstatementsmustbemadebysomeonewhoisunderdutytoma
kethem.Suchrecordsareadmissiblebecausetheyareassumedtobetrue
sincepeopledonotanticipatethattherewillbeapointinissuewherethesta
tementswillcomeintoquestion.Secondly,sincetheyaremadeintheordin
arycourseofbusiness,itassumedthatthepersonmadethemtruthfully.

NB:Suchstatementsmusthavebeenmadebeforethedisputearose
UnderSection32oftheEvidenceAct,whereentriesaremadeinbooksofacc
ounts,whichareregularlykeptinthecourseofbusiness,theyareadmissibl
ewhenevertheyrefertoaquestioninwhichcourtisinterested.

3. Statementsagainstthepecuniaryorproprietaryinterestofthe
maker-30(c)EvidenceAct.
Statementsareadmissibleifmadebyapersonwhohadaninterestinthesu
bjectmatter,butmadestatementagainsthisinteresteitherproprietaryof
pecuniary.Forinstanceif“A”recognizeshisindebtedto“B,”suchastatem
entwillbeadmissibleifthemakerisdead,orcannotbefoundorisincapable
ofgivingevidenceofhisattendanceorcannotbeorderedbycourt,orifhisat
tendancewillinvolveunnecessarydelayandexpenses.Suchstatementsi
ncludethosewhichwouldexposethemakertocriminalprosecutionorasui
tfordamages.Beforesuchevidencecanbeadmitteditmustbeprovedthat
themakerwasawareoftheconsequencesofthestatement.Ref;Taylorvs
.Witham(1876)3CH605.

4. StatementsConcerningPublicorGeneralRightsorCustom-
S.30(b)EvidenceAct.
Section30(b)istotheeffectthatstatementsmadebyapersonwhoiseither
deceasedorcannotbefound,orcannotbroughttocourt,wherethesestate
mentstendtoestablishageneralcustom,apublicright,oranymatterofpu
blicinterestisadmissible.
Publicrightsarethoserightswhichallcitizensareentitledtoorwhichaffect
membersofaparticularcommunityorsocietysuchasaccesstowater,eas
ement,life,clean,healthenvironmentse.t.c.

5. Statementsinrelationtotheexistenceofanyrelationshipbybl
oodormarriage(pedigree):S.30(e)EvidenceAct.
Whenastatementrelatestoanyrelationbybloodmarriageoradoptionora
nyperson,ifitismadebyapersonwithspecialknowledgeatthetimethestat
ementwasmade,thensuchastatementwouldbeadmissible.Thisishowe
veronlyrelevantinestablishingmattersofbloodrelationships.Suchdecla
rationsmusthavebeenmadebeforetheproceedingswereanticipated.Re
fertoHarrisvs.Guthie188413QBD818.

6.StatementsmadeinrelationtowillordeedS.30(f):

StatementsmadeinrelationtowillordeedS.30(f):relatingtotheexistence
ofanyrelationship,bybloodormarriageoradoptionbetweenthedecease
dandotherpersons.Underthiscausethereisnoneedforspecialknowledg
e

ADMISSIONS (Ss16-23UEA)
Section16definesanadmissionasastatement,oralordocumentary,whic
hsuggestsanyinferenceastoanyfactinissueorrelevantfact,andwhichis
madebyanyofthepersons,andinthecircumstances.

Thisdefinitionmaynotbeconclusive.AccordingtoPhipsononEvidence,9 th
edition,p.30,hedefinesadmissionsas,

“...incivilcases,statementsmadeoutofcourtbypartiestoproceedin
gsorbypartiesconnectedtohiminchapter9[ofthisbook]areadmissi
onsandtheyareadmissibleagainstbutnotinfavourofsuchapartyto
provethetruthofthefactsstated.”
Thegeneralruleofadmissionsisthattheyareadmissibleagainstthepart
ywhomakesthemandtheyshouldnotbeinfavourofthepartywhomakes
them.

Categoriesofadmissions:

1. Thosemadeincontemplationoforatthebeginningoftrial;

Thesearereceivableagainstthemakerasawaiverofproof,andwhenbro
ughttotheattentionofthecourt,judgmentcanbeenteredagainstthepa
rtywhomadetheadmissionsoronwhosebehalftheyweremade.

2. Thosemadewithoutaviewtothetrial.

Thesehavetobeprovenbythepartywhoallegesthatsuchstatementsw
ereactuallymade.Thus,theirmerepresentationisinadequate.

Itisimportanttonotethatastatementcontaininganadmissionhastobet
enderedinfullandifthestatementcontainssomepartswhicharefavour
abletothemakerandthoseagainsthiscasecanthereforebeusedasadm
issions,providedthattheentiredocumentistakenintoaccountwhenan
alysingtheevidence.

S28providesthatadmissionsarenotconclusiveproofofmattersinquest
ion,buttheymayoperateasestoppelsundertheprovisionsintheAct.

Rationaleforreceivingadmissionsagainstapersonwhomadet
hem:

1. Admissionsareself-
harming.Thepresumptionofthelawisthatnoonewantstoharmhims
elfthereforeifapersonmadeanadmissionagainsthimself,thensuch
declarationsareprobablytrue.

2. Lookingatananalogyofcontradictorystatementsbywitnesses,ad
missionsarereceivedagainstaparty,notasevidenceoftheirtruthan
dthereforeanexceptiontothehearsayrule,butmerelyasbeinginco
nsistentwithandso,discreditingthecaseotherwisesetoutbythepar
ty,e.g.ifAowesB10m/=,Apaid5m/
=,whichBacknowledgedinaletter.Amaybringsuchlettertocourtto
provethis.However,thiswillnotbeconclusiveevidenceaccordingto
S28.
3. Thisisthemostgenerallyacceptedrationale.Aparty’sdeclarations,
whetherfororagainsthisinterestsmayalwaysbetakentobetrueasa
gainsthimself.

SlatterievPooley6M&W664

Held:AccordingtoParkerJ,

“Whateverapartysaysisevidenceagainsthimself.Whataparty
admitstobetruemaybepresumedtobeso...”

RvTurner[1910]1KB346emphasizestherationaleforreceivingadmiss
ionsasevidence.

Inviewofthisrationale,Phipsongivesthegeneralruleonadmissions:Subje
cttocertainexceptions,thegeneralruleinbothcivilandcriminalmattersist
hatanyrelevantstatementmadebyapartyisevidenceagainsthimself.Th
eweighttobeattachedtoeachadmissionisadifferentmatterforlater,buta
dmissionsaregenerallyadmissibleincourt.Ifadeclarationismadeinfavou
rofaparty,thensuchdeclarationisnotreceivableasanadmission.

BrocklebankvThompson[1903]2Ch344,352

Held:

“Nopresumptionoftruthariseswithregardtodeclarationsofa
partyorhisagentswhentenderedasevidenceinhisownfavou
r,otherwiseeveryman,ifhewereinadifficultyorinviewofone,
mightmakedeclarationstosuithisowncase.”

GilbertonEvidence,1stedition,p.122:

“Nomancanbeawitnessforhimself,butheisthebestwitnesst
hatcanbeagainsthimself.”

Thereareexceptionstothegeneralruleasregardswhocanmakeadmissio
ns,i.e.thatotherpersons(otherthanpartiestothesuit)whichstatementsbi
ndpartiestothesuitasadmissions.

S17UEAprovidesthatstatementsmadebyapartytotheproceedings,orby
anagentofanysuchpartywhomthecourtregardsinthecircumstancesofa
caseasexpresslyorimpliedlyauthorisedbyhimtomakethem,areadmissi
ons.
Beforesuchastatementisreceivableincourt,therelationshipofagent-
principlemustfirstbeprovenorestablished.IntheCPR(SeeOrder3),there
areauthorisedagentse.g.advocatesorpeoplewithpowersofattorneyoro
therwiseauthorised.However,ifsuchevidenceisalreadythere,itdoesnot
havetobeproven.E.g.ifoneisalawyer,itisautomaticthats/
heistheclient’sagent;powersofattorneydulysigned,registeredandpres
entedtocourtareevidenceofonebeinganother’sagent.

AccordingtoOrder1CPR,apersoncanwritealetterauthorisinganother(co
-plaintifforco-
defendant)toconductthematteronhisbehalf.Indoingso,suchapersonisn
otanagentinthestrictsenseofS17;theyaremerelyrepresentatives.

Itreallyalldependsonthewordingoftheletter.Ifonesaysyouwillbeanagen
taccordingtoS17,sowillyoube.However,ifnot,you’rejustarepresentativ
e.Theagentmustbeimpliedlyorexpresslymadesuch.

S17alsoreferstostatementsmadebypartiestosuitssuingorbeingsuedin
arepresentativecharacter.Thesearenotadmissionsunlesstheywerema
dewhilethepartymakingthemheldthatcharacterofrepresentative.

Thesectionalsoreferstopersonswithproprietaryorpecuniaryinterestint
hesubjectmatteroftheproceedingsandwhomakethestatementinthech
aracterofpersonssointerested,e.g.wherepartnersinabusinessifoneofth
epartnersmakesanadmission,itwillbindtherest...co-shareholders,co-
defendants,etc.

Prerequisites:

1. Theadmittingpartymustbeinthecapacitythatlinkshimtothesuitwhe
nmakingtheadmission,e.g.youmuststillbeinpartnershipforyourstat
ementtobindtheco-partners;

2. S17alsospeaksofpersonsfromwhomthepartiestothesuithavederiv
edtheirinterestinthesubjectmatterofthesuit(e.g.inadministrationof
thedeceased’sestate,statementsbythedeceasedareadmissibleag
ainsttheestateadministrator,atenant,transfereeofland,statements
ofthesellercanalsobeusedagainstthetransferee).

3. GeneralqualificationsaremadeattheendofS17,i.e.admissionsaresu
chiftheyaremadeduringthecontinuanceoftheinterestofthepersons
makingthestatements,e.g.
 a) Tenantandseller;thestatementbythesellermusthavebeenmadew
hilethesellerwasstillowner,inorderforittoamounttoanadmission;

b) Ifthedefendantmadeastatementbeforehebecameownerofthelan
dinquestion,thestatementcannotbeadmittedasagainsttheadmin
istratorofhisestate.

Admissionsbypersonswhosepositionsmustbeprovedagainstpa
rtytothesuit(S18UEA)

Statementsmadebypersonswhosepositionorliabilityitisnecessarytopro
veasagainstanypartytothesuitareadmissions,ifthosestatementswould
berelevantasagainstthosepersonsinrelationtosuchpositionorliabilityin
asuitbroughtbyoragainstthem,andiftheyaremadewhilethepersonmaki
ngthemoccupiessuchpositionorissubjecttosuchliability.

Example:AborrowsmoneyfrombankBandCguaranteesthatshouldAfail
,Cwillpay.AfailstopayandBsuesbothAandCandatB’soption,Bmaychoos
etosueConlydependingontheirobligations.Toprovethedebtagainstthe
guarantor,youmustprovethedebtagainstA(principaldebtor),i.e.becaus
etheyarejointlyandseverallyliable.StatementsmadebyAareadmissible
asagainstC.

Admissionsbypersonsexpresslyreferredtobypartytothesuit(S
20)

Statementsmadebypersonstowhomapartytothesuithasexpresslyrefer
redtoforinformationinreferencetoamatterindisputeareadmissions.
(Ifyou’repartytoasuit,AsuesBwhosaysthe10m/
=isnotdue,evenCknowsthatitisnotdue,Cgoestocourt,acknowledgesth
esetruthsandsays10m/
=isdue,thatwillbetakenasanadmissionasagainstBreferredtoCasapers
onwhoknows.)

Exceptionstotherulethatadmissionsshouldbemadeagainstthe
maker(i.e.whereonecanbeawitnessforthemselves)

1. Ifthestatementsaremadeinthepresenceoftheadversarypartyandar
enotdeniedbyhim,thentheycanbeusedasadmissionsandtosupportt
hecaseofthemaker.
 (Thepresumptionofthelawisthatwhateverisintheaffidavithasbeena
cceptedbytheadversary);

2. Ifthelawallowsit(bystatute)e.g.intaxationlaw,assessmentoftaxism
adebasingonreturnspaidbythetaxpayer.Thatcanbeusedasevidenc
ebythetaxpayerincases/
heischallenged,thetaxrecordscanbeusedasevidenceincourtforthe
mselves.

3. Ifitisinthecaseofpublicaccounts,theycanbepresentedbythepublico
fficersconcerned.SeeSs73-77;

4. Ifthestatementsarecontemporaneouswritings,e.g.thoseusedtorefr
eshone’smemory(forinstanceinameeting),thosecanbeusedbyapart
yforthemselves;

5. Wherethestatementsarenottenderedasevidencebuttheyarebroug
htasoriginaldocumentsofrecordoriftheyarepartoftheresgestae,ifth
eyareprovingactsofownershiporiftheyareshowinggoodfaith.Forexa
mplestatementsofaccountfrombusiness,bankstatements,etc.Itisk
nownthatgoodfaithisreallyastatementofmind,soaremattersoffraud
,thereforethosedocumentscanrevealwhetherornotonewasfraudule
nt.Onquestionsofownership,thedocumentsinvolvedcanbeusedtosh
owthis,e.g.lettersbetweentenants,receipts,etc.

Whenandtowhomadmissionsmaybemade:

Theprincipleruleisthatwhenoneisapartytoacase,whetherhe’ssuingorb
eingsuedpersonally,anyadmissionmadebyhimonaformeroccasionisad
missibleandcanbeusedagainsthim.Accordingtocaselaw,thisincludesst
atementsmadewhilesomeonewasaminor.O’NeilvRead7Ir.L.R434

Thereare,however,qualificationstothis.SeePhipsononEvidence,p.4
32;Halsbury’sLawsofEngland(onadmissions).

Statementsmadewhensomeoneisactinginrepresentativecapacityarea
lsoadmissions,savethatthosemadeafteracharacterexistsarenotadmis
sionsagainsttheotherpartiestothesuit.SeeS17&TrusteesvHunting[1
897]1QB611
Itisimmaterialtowhomadmissionsaremade,therefore,evenstatements
madetostrangersarereceivableasadmissions.Admissionsmadetoones
elfaremerelysoliloquy.SeeRvSimons.

Evenadmissionsmadetoalegaladvisororawifearereceivableifprovedby
athirdparty.Therationaleisthatthelegaladvisororwifewouldn’treadilya
dmit,butifathirdparty’swordshowed,thentheyarereceivable.

Ontheotherhand,lawyers’admissions,inordertobindtheirclientsmustha
vebeenmadespecificallytotheadversarypartyandadmissionsmadetos
upportthecaseofacreditorshouldalsohavebeenmadetothecreditor.The
yshouldn’tbestatementsmadetopeoplewhoareprivytothecreditor-
debtorcontract.
(Thatdoesnottakeoutadmissionsmadetothedebtor’sagents,whichared
efinitelyadmissible.)

See:

StamfordCo.vSmith[1892]1QB765

ShawvShaw[1935]2KB135-136

UgandaKabandize

RvSimons(statementsmadetooneself)

Circumstancesinwhichadmissionsaremade(Aretheyrelevant?)

Theweightofadmissionsdependsoncircumstancesunderwhichtheywer
emade.S20givestheprocessofprovingadmissionsmadebypersonsthem
selvesorontheirbehalf.Asapre-
condition,therearespecificinstanceswhereadmissionscanbeconsidere
dbythecourtandbeprovableagainstthepersonwhomakesthem,orhisrep
resentativeininterest.

S20providesthatanadmissionmaybeprovedbyoronbehalfofapersonma
kingitifsuchanadmissionwouldhavebeenrelevantbetweenthirdpartiesi
fsuchpersonwhomadeithaddied.ThesectionmakesreferencetoS30whi
chdealswithpeoplewhocannotbecalledaswitnesses,includingdeadpeo
ple.

S20alsoprovidesthatsuchstatementscanalsobeprovedwhentheyconsi
stofastatementwhichreferstotheexistenceofanystateofmindorbodyrel
 evant,orinissuewhenthatstatementwasmadeatatimewhenthestateof
mindorbodyexistedandfollowingwhich,certaineventsorconductoccurr
edwhichbringthestatement’struthfulnessindoubt.Forexample,ifthere
werelettersshowingone’sinsanityandlater,thepersonactssanely,latert
hosedocumentscanbeadmittedtoprovethatonewassane.

Thesectionalsoprovidesthatsuchstatementsareprovableiftheyarerele
vantinanyotherwaythanbywayofadmissions.Commonlawhasaddedmo
reexceptionstotherulethatoneisnotrequiredtoproveadmissionsmadeb
ythem.Admissions,unlessamountingtoestoppels,canbechallengedbyt
hepartyagainstwhomtheyarebroughtinevidenceasbeinguntrue.

Instanceswhichmaywaterdowntheweightofanadmission

a)Ifoneprovesthattherewasamistakeofeitherfactorlaw;

b)Proofthatoneutteredtheadmissioninignorance,levityoranabnormalconditi
onofmind.SeeRvHedges3Cr.App.R262

Ontheotherhand,theweightofanadmissionincreaseswiththeknowledge
anddeliberation.ForexamplethewordsofaLawProfessorandthoseofana
uctioneer.SeeRvMcGregor.Thesolemnityofanoccasiononwhichastat
ementwasmadealsomatters.

Admissionsmadeconditionallyarereceivableinevidenceiftheconditioni
sfulfilled,butnototherwise.Inthesameway,ifanadmissionismadewhent
hemakerhasinhismindaparticularhypothesisoffacts.

PowellvMcGlynn1902Ir.L.R154

Offers“withoutprejudice”

Offersofcompromisemadewithoutprejudiceexpresslyorimpliedlycann
otbeadmittedinevidenceasadmissions.Theterm“withoutprejudice”act
sasasortofexclusionclausetoexcusetheletterwriterfromliabilityfromso
mething,aslongasitwaswritten“withoutprejudice”forexampleinalawsu
itwherealawyeragreeswithhisclientthatat100m/
=hecandropthesuityettheycancontinueat180m/
=andlaterthesuitbreaksdown,thelawyercanwritesuchletter.

Offersmaybetakentohavebeenwritten“withoutprejudice”evenwheniti
snotexpresslystated.SeeOlivervNautilusCo.
[1903]2KB639.Theseareoffersespeciallyshowingthatapartywasmaki
ngabonafideattempttosettlewithoutadispute.Itwillbetakenassucheve
nifitwasnotexpresslystatedassuch.Forexample,ifyouagreetosettleadis
puteoutsideofcourtatacertainamount,itdoesn’tmeanthatoneisbanned
fromsuinganother.

Evenifthestatementwon’tbereceivedasanadmission,thefact(oftheexis
tenceoftheletter)anddateoftheletterareadmissible,toproveelementsli
kedelay,unreasonableconduct.

WalkervWilsher23QBD335(CourtofAppealdecision)

StotesburyvTurner[1943]KB370

Foranoffertoamounttoone“withoutprejudice”apartfromthatstatement
intheletteroritsbeingadduciblefromtheconstructionofthestatement,th
erearecertainpre-conditionswhichmustbefulfilled:

1.Therehastobeadisputeornegotiationsbetweenpartiesandthestatem
entmusthavebeenwrittenbonafidetosettlethatdispute.ReDaintrey
exparteHolt[1893]2QB116.E.gwherepeoplewrite,“privateandco
nfidential”meanttobeinter-
parties,ifitcontainsthreatsorotherstatementsnotinlinewithasettlem
entorresolutionoftheconflict,itcanbebroughtasevidenceofthoseothe
relements.WattvWatt1905AC115
2. Ifthealternativetoacceptwhatwaswrittenwasthecommittalofanactof
bankruptcy,thenthelettermaybeadmittedtoprovethatact,e.g.hiding
awayfromyourcreditorsinanactofbankruptcy(keepinghouse).Ifthede
btorwritesalettertohiscreditors“withoutprejudice”andthecreditorac
cepts,courtwillconsiderthatthedebtorissavedfromliability.However,i
fthecreditorrefuses,whetherornotthewords“withoutprejudice”were
written,thedebtorwillbeliableandconsideredtohavecommittedanact
ofbankruptcy.SeeReDaintrey(supra)
3. Ifindependentfactswereadmittedduringthenegotiations,suchindepe
ndentfactsareadmissibleasadmissionsevenifaletterwithoutprejudic
efollows.Also,ifanofferwithoutprejudicehasbeenacceptedbytheadve
rsaryoriftheprotectedconditionhasbeenfulfilled,thentheletterwithou
tprejudicewillbetakenasanadmission.
4. Anotice“withoutprejudice”toannulasalefollowingfailedacceptanceof
agivenconditionisvoidandunacceptable.
(E.g.ifonefailstofulfiltheirsideofthecontractandgivesnotice,thentries
 toturnaroundandsaytheydidn’t,claimingitwaswrittenwithoutprejudi
ce,thenyou’reestopped).ReWeston[1907]1Ch244
5. Criminallibel“withoutprejudice”isreceivableinevidence.Therational
eistoavoidpeoplehidingunderthiscovertodefameothers.StrettonvS
tubbs[1905]ALLER
6. Letters“withoutprejudice”arebroughtasadmissionsiftheyareusedina
differentactionthanthedisputewhichwasbeingsettledandalso,ifthey
areusedbythirdparties(e.g.iftherearenegotiationsbetweentwopeopl
eanditcontainsrelevantfactsinanothercaseconcerningdifferentpeopl
e,notyou,thenthecourtwilladmititforpurposesofprooforevidenceinth
atothercase).Theprotectionappliesonlyinthesameactionandbetwee
nthemandthethirdparties.Thus,thirdpartiescanrelyonofferswithoutp
rejudice.
7. Lettersornegotiationsbetweenlawyersareinadmissibleasagainstthe
mselvesaswellasagainsttheirclients.LaRochevArmstrong[1922]
1KB485

Admissionsmadeundercompulsionorcoercion

Inaciviltrial,thereislegalcompulsionandanadmissionmadeundercompulsioni
sadmissiblee.g.awitnessmayanswertointerrogatoriesandtheevidence
gotoutoftheinterrogatorieswouldbeadmissiblebothinthecasewherethe
interrogatorieshavebeenconductedandinsubsequentciviltrials.Thisals
oappliestoadmissionsmadeduringtestimonywherethespeakerorhislaw
yerhadobjectedtothequestionbeingaskedortheanswergivenbythespe
akeratthetimemighthavebeenirrelevantorthewitnesswaspreventedfro
mfullyexplainingthestatement.Allthisnotwithstanding,thestatementc
anbeusedatafuturetrialasanadmission.

Whenadmittingstatements,thewholestatementmustbetaken,includinghear
sayandopinionevidence.Shariff&anothervSethna&others.Itmustb
enotedthoughthatthegeneralruleonweightingofhearsayevidenceistha
titisnotadmissible.

Anadmissionisreceivablewhenfoundedonhearsayalthoughitsweightwillbeve
ryslight.Thisappliestoadmissionsbasedontheparty’sdeclarationofopini
onorbelief.Butwheretheadmissionisamereinferencefromfactsnotpers
onallyknowntothedeclarant,thecourtmaydisregardtheinferenceandlo
oktothefacts.Abarestatementthatapartyisinformedwithouttheaddition
ofhisorherbeliefintheinformationwillnotamounttoanadmission.
TheFormofadmissions

Admissionsmaytakeonmanyforms,e.g.affidavits,whichmustfirstqualifyasan
admissionbeforebeingacceptedasevidence.Itisimmaterialwhatformad
missionsaremadein,therefore,theycanbemadebywayofaffidavitsoreve
nanswerstointerrogatories.

ReCohen[1924]2Ch515

Held:Admissionscanbedeclarationsinwills(SeeReHoyle[1894]1Ch34),recita
lsanddescriptionsinagreements,receipts,accounts,passbooks,maps,e
tc.

Withregardtopleadings,unlesstheyaresworne.g.affidavits,oradoptedinfutur
eproceedings,theyaren’tadmissionsandevenjudgmentsinpreviouscas
esarenotadmissionsoffacts.

Mattersprovablebyadmissions

Admissionscanprovebothlawandfacts,oramixtureofboth.However,admissio
nswhichtendtoprovelaworamixtureoflawandfactwillhaveverylittlewei
ghtunlesstheyamounttoestoppel.

Incasesofadultery,theburdenofproofisordinarilyhigh,however,theadmission
ofadultery,althoughuncorroborated,hasbeenheldtobesufficienteviden
cewhereitisconsideredtrustworthye.g.whereitisseenashavingbeenma
detoobtainforgivenessasopposedtoobtainingadivorce.SeeRobinsonv
Robinson

See:

RvNaguib[1917]1KB359
Gopa&othersvR
KasulevUganda
RussellvRussell[1924]AC681
ChilcottvChilcott[1904]TLR
Admissionsfromdocuments

UnlessexcludedbytheEvidenceAct,aparty’sadmissionsoutofcourtbeingprim
aryevidenceagainsthimarereceivabletoprovethecontentsofadocumen
twithoutnoticetoproduceorexplaintheabsenceoftheoriginalsofsuchdoc
uments.Similarly,oraladmissionsastothecontentsofsuchadocumentm
ayberelevantincertainsituations.S21

Theaboveisbasedonthegeneralruleofparoleevidencethatdocumentaryevide
nceisthebest,i.e.itspeaksforitselfthereforethereisnoneedforonetoprov
ethecontentsofthedocumentswhentheyareclear.

Instancesofadmissibilityoforalevidence

1. Whereoneisrequiredtogivesecondaryevidence(S21)andwhereon
eisentitledunderS62(SeealsoSs60&69)

2. Whereanadmissionismadeinattestationofadocument.SeeS69

3. Ifthegenuinenessofthedocumentproducedisinquestion(S21)e.g.i
ftheotherpartychallengesthegenuinenessofthecontentsofthetitl
e,ifeitherpartyevermadeanoralstatementconcerningthatdocum
ent,suchcanbeusedasanadmission,andthereforeevidenceagains
thimorher.Althoughthecontentsofadocumentmaybeprovedintha
tfashion,theycannotbevariedorcontradictedinthatmanner.SeeD
oevWebster

SeeS22.Anadmissionmadeunderanexpressconditionorintentionthatitshould
notbeallowedinevidenceoriffromthecircumstancesofthecase,theparti
esagreedassuch,thenitshouldnotbeadmittedasevidence.

Ambiguousadmissions

Wherethefactsadmittedarecapableof2differentinterpretations,bothofwhich
beingequallypossible,itwillthenbeuptothecourttodecidewhichofthetw
omeaningsistaken.

DaveyvLondon&SouthRailway12QBD70,76
TransamivRoadmasterCycles

Held:ArachJ-
ForCourttogivejudgementforanadmission,underOrder11CPR,theadmi
ssionmustbeunequivocal.

CONFESSIONS
TheUgandaEvidenceActdoesnotdefineconfessionsnordoestheInterpre
tationAct.Onecanhowever,borrowthedefinitionoftheKenyanEvidence
Actwhichindicatesthatconfessionscompriseofwordsorconductoracom
binationofwordsandconductfromwhichwhethertakenaloneorinconnec
tionwithotherwordsleadtoaninferencethatmayreasonablybedrawntha
tthepartymakingtheconfessionhascommittedanoffence.
Itisimportanttonotethatconfessionshaveseveralingredients.Thesehav
ebeenspeltoutbycourtindifferentcases.InUgandaunders.24,itisindicat
edthataconfessionisirrelevantifitappearstocourtthathavingregardtoth
estateofmindoftheaccusedinallcircumstancessurroundingit,theaccus
edmadeitoutofviolence,forceorthreat,inducementorpromisecalculate
dintheopinionofthecourttocauseanuntrueconfession.InthecaseofSwa
mivTheEmperor(1939)1ALLER396,theprinciplewasconfirmedthat
aconfessionmusteitheradmitintermstheoffenceorallfactswhichconstit
utetheoffence.ThesamedecisionwasupheldbythecourtinUgandavYo
samuMutahanzo(1988-
90)HCB4whereitwasheldthataconfessionconnotesanunequivocalad
missionofhavingcommittedanactinlawthatamountstoacrimeandmust
eitheradmitintermstheoffenceoratanyratesubstantiallyallthefactswhi
chconstitutetheoffence.Theaccused’sextrajudicialstatementwasanex
culpatorystatementinthesensethatthe4accusedthrewblameontheacc
usedandhisstatementcouldnotamounttoaproperconfession.Insteadof
beingconvictedformurdertheaccusedwasconvictedformanslaughter.

Anadmissionofagravelyincriminatingorevenconclusivelyincriminating
factisnotinitselfaconfession.Inanaccusedpersonadmitsthatheowneda
firearmatthemurderofsomeone,thisdoesnotmeanthathehasconfessed
tothemurderofthedeceased.Thereforeaconfessionmustbeanunequivo
caladmissionofhavingcommittedanactwhichinlawamountstoacrimean
dmusteitheradmitintermstheoffenceoratanyratesubstantiallyallthefa
ctswhichconstituteanoffence.ThusinGopa&othersvR(1953)20EAC
A318,itwasstatedthattheaccused’sextrajudicialstatementwasexculp
atoryinthesensethatitexplainedtheactofstabbingandthereforethebla
meonthedeceasedperson.AlsointhecaseofUgandavLakot(1986)HC
B27,itwasheldthattheconfessionwasequivocalsincetheaccusedadmit
tedtohavingassaultedthecomplainantbutwentaheadtoexplainwhyhed
idso.

InthecaseofGopatheJudgesaidthataconfessionisadirectacknowledge
mentofguiltonthepartoftheaccusedwhichissufficienttoconvicthim.Thej
udgeheldthatalthoughanextrajudicialstatementcontainsselfexculpato
rymatteritcanstillbeaconfessioniftheselfexculpatorymatterdoesnotne
gativetheoffenceallegedtobecharged.Itisimportanttonotethatthisisdi
fferentfromadmissions.Anadmissionmaybeequivocalaslongasitcontai
nsmattersrelatingtotheliabilityofthemaker.
SelfExculpatoryMatters

ThedefinitionisinSwamivTheEmperor.Itisclearlyindicatedthatitisam
atteradoptedorintendedtofreethemakerfromblamefortheactadmittedi
ntheconfession.ThesamewasdiscussedinthecaseofUgandavKamala
wo&Others(1983)HCB25.

Theotheringredientisthataconfessionmustbeadmittedasawhole.Ifitco
ntainssomepartsthatareinadmissiblethenitcannotbetakenasaconfessi
on.InthecaseofUgandavYosefuNyabenda(1972)11ULR19,thejud
geclearlystatedthatthecourtwastoreceivetheconfessionoftheaccused
asawholeandnotinseveralpartsandsinceitcontainedliesandhalftruthth
entheconfessioncouldnotbeadmittedasatrueone.Aconfessionhastobe
takenasawholealthoughitdoesnothavetobebelievedasawhole.Thecas
eofUgandavSebuguzi&others(1988-
1990)HCB18clearlystatedthatasregardsthevalueofaconfessionagain
stthemakeritistritelawthataconfessionshouldbetakenasawhole.Itwasa
lsostatedthataconfessionneednotbebelievedasawholeordisbelieveda
sawhole.Itwasopentothetrialjudgetoacceptpartorrejectthewholeofit.

RetractionofConfessions

Anaccusedpersoncanretractorrepudiateaconfession.Aretractedconfe
ssionoccurswhenanaccusedmakesastatementoraconfessionwhichhel
aterseekstotakebackonthegroundthatheeithermadeitoutofmistakeor
didnotdoitvoluntarily.Ss24,25and276shouldbereadtogetheronthis.An
accusedpersonmayretractaconfessionintwoways:-

1. Byclearandpositiveexpressrepudiation.
2. Byimplication.

InPolovR17EACA150thepolicemenarrestedaCongoleseandtheymad
eaconversationinKiswahili.Duringthetrialtheaccusedsaidtherewasami
sunderstandingbetweenthemduringtheconversation.TheCourttookthi
sasaretractedconfession.InRvKengo&Another(1930)10EACA123,
theaccusedmadeastatementbeforeamagistrateandconfessedthemur
derbutduringthetrialhemadeanunswornstatementinwhichhedeniedth
epreviousstatement,hesaidhehadonlyheardfromsomeoneelsethatthe
deceasedhaddied.Thegeneralruleregardingrepudiatedandretractedc
onfessionsisthattheconfessionsareadmissibleinevidenceprovidedthec
ourtissatisfiedthattheconfessionwasmadevoluntarily.InthecaseofTuw
amoivUganda(1967)EA84,thecourtsaidthatthereisnocleardistinctio
nbetweenrepudiatedandretractedconfessionsandforanyofthemtobea
cceptedbycourtitshouldbedonewithgreatcautionandthecourtshouldfir
stsatisfyitselfthatallcircumstancessurroundingtheconfessiondonotne
gativeit.Toamounttoaretractedconfessiontheaccusedpersonadmitsha
vingmadethestatementrecordedbuthenowwishestotakeitbackontheg
roundthatitwasmadeinvoluntarilywhereasarepudiatedconfessionisast
atementwhichtheaccusedpersonavershenevermade.Allthisisdiscusse
dintheTuwamoicase.

InUgandaVKanuniniEdward(1976)HCB159,JudgeAllenheldthatwit
hregardtoretractedconfessions,thecourtshoulddirectitselfonthedange
rsofactingonitintheabsenceofcorroborationandsomematerialparticula
rexceptwherethecourtisfullysatisfiedinthecircumstancesofthecasetha
titmustbetrue.InZenonZavuru(1993-
1993)HCB7,theCourtofAppealstatedthatoncetheappellanthadrepudi
atedtheconfessionthetrialjudgeoughttohavedirectedhimselfandtheas
sessorstotheeffectthatcourthadtoacceptaconfessionwithcautionandh
adtobesatisfiedthatinallcircumstancesofthecasetheconfessionwastru
e.

Whathappenswhensomeonehasretractedorwhentheaccusedd
eniestheconfessionorchallengesitsadmissibility?

Iftheconfessionisdeniedbytheaccusedpersonthenthetrialjudgeshould
conductatrialwithinatrial.ThisinaccordancewithcaseofMajorJohnKaz
ooravUganda(1994)1KALR143.Thepurposeofthetrialwithinatrialist
odecideupontheevidenceofbothsidesastowhethertheconfessionshoul
dbeadmitted.Courtcannotbysimplylookingatthestatementconcludeth
atitwasmadevoluntarily.Astatementthatismadevoluntarilyisonemade
absolutelyfreefrominducementinfluenceofwhatevernature.Inthecase
ofCommissionerofCustomsandExciseversusHarz&others(1967
)1ALLER172,thecourtheldthatitistruethatmanyoftheso-
calledinducementshavebeensovaguethatnoreasonablemanwouldhav
ebeeninfluencedbythem,butonemustnotethatnotallaccusedpersonsa
rereasonablemenandwomen.Therefore,astatementmadeinvoluntarily
isinadmissible.ThesamewasheldinthecaseofUgandavKalema&othe
rs(1974)HCB142.InBinuge&othersvUganda(1992-
93)HCB29,thecourtheldthatthe1stappellantwasprejudicedwhenhisob
jectiontotheadmissibilityofhisextrajudicialstatementwassummarilydis
missedbythetrialjudge.Itwasheldthatitistritelawthatwhentheadmissibi
lityofanextrajudicialstatementischallenged,thentheobjectingaccused
mustbegivenchance,toestablishbyevidence,hisgroundsofobjectionthr
oughatrialwithinatrial.

Section25UEAgivesanexceptiontothegeneralruleofinvoluntariness.Th
econfessionsreferredtoinsection24ifmadeaftertheimpressioncausedb
yanysuchinducement,threatorpromisehasintheopinionofthecourtbee
nfullyremoved,thenitisirrelevant.

RvSmith(1959)2ALLER193

Facts:Therehadbeenafightbetweenpersonsoftwocompaniesandoneo
fthemwasstabbedtodeath.Onthesamedaythepoliceputmembersofthe
companyonparadeandwhileinterviewingthemapoliceofficermadeasta
tementtooneoftheaccusedpersonsthat,“Iamnotleaving,Iamstayingunt
ilyougivemeananswertothisfight”.Aftersayingthistheaccusedconfesse
dthathewastheonewhostabbedthedeceasedandthefollowingdaypolic
ereferredtothatstatementmadebytheaccusedandaskedhimwhetherh
ewantedtomakeaconfessionaboutit.Hewascautionedandhemadeawrit
tenconfession.Hewasconvictedandmadeanappeal.

Held:ThecourtofAppealheldthatthewordswerethreatsi.e.ontheprevio
usdayandtheconfessionwasinadmissible.Onthefollowingdaythefirstth
reatwasoperatingontheaccused’smindandtheconfessionwasinadmissi
ble.AccordingtoDauvR(1962)EA9theeffectisthatiftheoriginalinduce
mentorthreathasdisappearedthenalaterconfessionisadmissible.

InDauvR

Facts:Amotherleftthegirlwiththeappellant.Whenhermotherreturned,t
hechildhaddisappeared.Thenextdaythegirlwasfounddrownedinariver
andthemedicalevidenceshowedthatshehadbeeninterferedwithsexuall
y.Theappellantwasarrestedandthreedayslatertakenbypolicesergeantt
otheriver.Withoutchargingorcautioninghimthepolicemanaskedtheapp
ellanttopointoutwherehehadpushedthedeceasedintotheriver.Theapp
ellantsaiditwaswherepeopledrawwater.Thenextdaythesergeantsaidto
theappellant“YouaregoingtosaywhatyoutoldmeyesterdaybutIamnotg
oingtoforceyoutodoso”.

Issue:Whetherthesergeant’swordsconstitutedathreat?

Held:Thewords“Youaregoingtosaywhatyoutoldmeyesterday…”didno
tconstituteanorderorthreatinthemindoftheappellantastheyweretemp
eredbywordswhichfollowedandanypossibleeffecttheymightstillhaveh
adontheappellantwouldhavedisappearedbythewordsofcautionwhichf
ollowed.

Thuswhereamagistrateorpoliceofficertakesaspecialprecautionbeforet
akingastatementthelapseoftimebetweenthepreviousinducementandt
hetakingofthestatementandthelackofanyallegationbytheaccusedpers
onthattherewasanythreatorinducementatalaterstageafterthecautioni
sgiven,theconfessionisadmissible.SeeRvNanta(1944)11EACA83an
dsection25oftheevidenceact.

THEEFFECTOFINDUCEMENTSANDTHREATS

ThisisgovernedbySection24oftheEvidenceAct.Thesectionistotheeffect
thattheconfessionmadebyanaccusedpersonisirrelevantiftakingintoac
countthestateofmindandthecircumstancessurroundingtheconfession-
itwascausedbyviolence,threats,force,inducementorpromisecalculate
dintheopinionofthecourttocauseanuntrueconfession.Itisimportantton
otethesalientelementsreferredtointhesection.

1. Thecourthastoconsiderthestateofmindoftheaccusedduringtheti
metheallegedconfessionwasmade.Itisthereforemandatorythatw
hentheaccusedpersonallegesthathemadetheconfessioninanyoft
hecircumstancesmentionedbythesectionthenthecourtshouldma
keafindingastowhethertheaccusedpersonvoluntarilymadetheco
nfessionthereforethestateofmindoftheaccusedhastobeclearlyst
ated.ThisisinlinewiththepositioninthecaseofEmmanuelNsubug
avUganda(1992-1993)HCB24.
2. Thecircumstancesinwhichaconfessionwasmadehavetoinvestiga
tedtofindoutwhethersuchcircumstancesamounttoanyoftheaspe
ctsmentionedinthesection.Itisimportanttonotethatalthoughthes
ectionappearstosaythatboththestateofmindandthecircumstanc
eshavetobelookedatproofoftheitemsindicatedinthesectionbyan
yofthetwomeanswouldsuffice.
3. TheViolence,force,threat,inducementorpromisemustbeofanatur
ecalculatedintheopinionofthecourttocausethemakingofanuntru
econfession.Itmusthavebeenmadetoapersoninauthorityi.e.apoli
ceofficerormagistrate.Thenaturemustberelatingtothecommissio
nofanoffenceaccordingtocaseofRvNorahma9KLR12.Theonuso
fprovingthreats,violence,inducementorforcelieswiththepersonal
legingsuch.

Section24reflectsthepositionwhichwastakeninthecaseof:
UgandavWabwire(1976)212

Facts:Theaccusedwaschargedwithmurderandtheprosecutionsoughtt
oproduceaconfessionstatementallegedlymadebyhimon16 thOctober19
75toamagistrateGrade11atIganga.AtthecommencementofthetrialCo
unselfortheaccusedintimatedthatheintendedtochallengetheconfessio
nstatementandsothetrialJudgeorderedatrialwithinatrialtobeheld.Duri
ngthetrialwithinatrialtheMagistrateGrade11(PW4),theonlywitnesscall
edbytheprosecutionduringthistrial,testifiedthattheaccusedwasbroug
httohisChambersatIgangaCourtbyapoliceConstableforpurposesofmak
ingastatement.

Held:Themagistratecautionedtheaccusedinthefollowingterms:

“Ifyouhavebeenforcedorthreatenedorinducedinanywaybyth
epolicetocomehereandmakethisstatementyoushouldsayso.B
utwhateveryouwillsayshallberecordeddownandmaybebroug
htasevidenceatyourtrialattheHighCourt.”

TheaccusedtoldtheMagistratethathehadnotbeenforcedandwishedtom
akeastatementvoluntarily.Astatementwasthenrecordedinthelanguag
eoftheaccused;itwasreadbacktohimandhesaiditwastrueandcorrect.At
ranslationwasmadeinEnglishandtheaccusedthumbmarkedbothstate
mentsandtheMagistratecountersignedthem.

OnCrossexamination,whenitwassuggestedtothemagistratethattheca
utionadministeredwasimproperandthattheaccusedhadnotvolunteere
dthestatementashehadbeenbeatenpriortobeingtakentohim,he(them
agistrate)saidhedidnotknowwhathappenedtotheaccusedpriortobeing
broughtbeforehimbutasfarashecouldseetheaccusedwasnormalandfit.
Hedidnotcomplainofanybeatingorthreat.

Theaccused,whogaveswornevidence,saidthathehadbeenarrestedon8 t
h
October1975andkeptinPolicecustodyuntil16thOctober1975whenhew
astakentothecourttomakeastatement.Duringthattimehewassubjecte
dtointerrogationsandmercilessbeatings(heshowedcourtsomescarstos
ubstantiatetheseallegations)andwastoldtoadmithavingkilledthedece
ased.Beforehewastakentothemagistratehewastoldtoadmitorelsehew
ouldfacefurtherbeatings.Thestatementhemadewasuntrueanditwasbe
causehefearedthepolicebeatingsthathemadeaconfession;hemadeito
utoffearforhislife.
Counselforthestatesubmittedthateveniftheallegationsoftheaccusedth
athewasbeatenweretrue,thatwasnotenoughtoexcludethestatement;t
heaccusedmustprovethatthebeatingsandthethreatswereintendedtoc
auseanuntrueconfessiontobemade.

Courtheldasfollowsinteralia:

1. Onceaconfessionisproperlyrecordeditisprimafacieadmissible.Ho
wever,theaccusedisentitledtochallengesuchastatementifpriorto
beingmadehewasinducedtomakeormadeitthroughfearorthreats
orthroughpromisesandundersection24oftheEvidenceAct.

Itisfortheprosecutiontoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthataconfe
ssionisvoluntaryandtheaccusedneedonlyraiseobjectionstoitfort
hereisnorequirementinlawthathemustprovehisallegationsofthre
atsorpromises.
2. Wherethedefencechallengesaconfessionatrialwithinatrialisheld
anditisduringthistrialwithinatrialthattheprosecutionmustadduce
alltheevidencereliedupontoprovethevoluntarynatureofthestate
ment.Theprosecutionmustthereforecallwitnessesforpurposesof
proofandwitnesseswhohavetestifiedbeforeorwhomightbecalledl
atermustbecalledforthepurposeofprovingthestatementiftheirevi
denceisrelevantandinfactforpurposesofthetrialwithinatrialanywi
tnesswhetheronthesummaryofevidenceornotisrelevant.Theacc
usedisthenentitledtogiveevidenceonoathornotonoathandtocall
witnessesifany.
3. Inatrialwithinatrialtheevidencemustbecompletebyitselfbuttheev
idenceinthemaintrialisnotbeforethecourtatthatstageandalthoug
hitmaybelookedat,itcannotbereliedupontotheprejudiceofanaccu
sed.
4. Intheinstantcase,theprosecutiondidnotcomplywiththestandardp
rocedureinprovingtheallegedconfessionfortheydidnotlaybeforec
ourtalltheevidencethatasnecessaryforittodecideontheissueofad
missibilityoftheconfession.Theprosecutioncalledonlythemagistr
ateasawitnessforpurposesofprovingtheallegedconfessionyetthe
accusedmadedamagingallegationsofbrutalbeatingsagainstthep
oliceinhisswornevidenceandshowedthecourtsomescarstosubsta
ntiatetheseallegations.Sincetheprosecutiondidnotcallanybodyfr
ompolicetodenytheseallegationsitwasextremelydifficulttoassu
methattheaccusedhadliedagainstthepolice.
 5. Theaccusedininstantcase,oughttohavebeenchargedandtakento
courtassoonashewasarrestedandintheabsenceofpoliceevidence
denyingtheaccused’sallegationsoflonginterrogations,beatingsa
ndthreatsbythepoliceitcouldnotbesaidwithcertaintythattheseall
egationswerewithoutmerit,whichdoubtinthecircumstancesofthe
caseandtheevidencebeforecourtwouldberesolvedinfavourofthe
accused.
6. Theconfessionwasinadmissiblesinceitwasmadeasaresultofthrea
ts.
7. Aconfessionisgenerallyreceivedbycourtwithcautionbecausethe
motiveofthepersonmakingsuchconfessionisoftennotclear;itisdo
ubtfulwhetherthelegislatureintendedtoenactthattheendjustifies
themeanswheninsection24maximumsafeguardsweremadeagai
nstextractingconfessionsmadebyuseofforce.

Theexceptiontosection24isfoundinsectionisfoundinsection26oftheEvi
denceAct.Undersection26confessionsotherwiserelevantdonotbecome
irrelevantbecauseofpromiseofsecrecy,deception,drunkennessorfailur
etobewarnedthatsuchapersonwasnotboundtomakeaconfession.Accor
dingtothecaseofMwangivR(1954)EA377thegeneralprincipleisthatt
hecourtmusthaveregardtothestateofmindoftheaccusedandallcircums
tancesofthecaseinadmittingconfessions.

ConfessionAgainstCoaccused(section27EvidenceAct)

Undersection27whenmorepersonsthanonearebeingtriedjointlyforthes
ameoffence,andaconfessionmadebyoneofthosepersonsaffectinghims
elforherselfandsomeotherofthosepersonsisproved,thecourtmaytakei
ntoconsiderationsuchconfessionasagainstthatotherpersonaswellasth
epersonwhomakestheconfession.Underthissectionthegeneralruleisth
atanaccusedperson’sconfessioncanbeusedagainsthiscoaccused.How
ever,thereareexceptionstotheruleinsection27.Accordingtothecaseof
NsubugavUgandaifthestatementintendstoexonerateitsmakerandim
plicatesthecoaccusedthentheweightattachedtoitisverysmall.Inthecas
eofAbduKasujjavUgandaCriminalAppeal596of1964JusticeKeatin
gsaidthataconfessionbyanaccusedpersoncanbeusedasabasisofthepro
secution’sevidenceagainstthecoaccusedhoweversuchevidenceneeds
corroborationandtheaccusedmustimplicatehimselftothesameextenth
eisimplicatingtheotherandheshouldbeexposinghimselfbymakingsuch
aconfessiontothesameriskorevengreaterriskthantheothers.Thesamep
rinciplesarecontainedinthecaseofUgandavKamusuni&Another(19
76)HCB159.

UgandavSebuguzi&Others(1988-1990)HCB18

Facts:ThethreeaccusedwereindictedwithmurderofthefatherofA1.Inth
iscasealltheevidenceofthe7prosecutionwitnesseswasadmittedincludi
nganextrajudicialstatementrecordedfromA1byagrade11magistratew
howasalsoawitnessfortheprosecution.Theextrajudicialstatementprod
ucedasanexhibitatthetrialcontainedthegistofalltheprosecutions’evide
nceoffivewitnessescalledtotestifyincourt.PW1asonofthedeceasedand
brothertoA1testifiedthathisbrother(A1)whohadbeenstayingwithA2mo
vedtothedeceased’shouseinDecember1984butsoonthereafterstarted
sellingthedeceased’spropertyasaresultofwhichareportofthetheftwas
madetothepolicebeforewhomA1admittedthesales.Later,thedisappear
anceofthedeceasedwasreportedtotheChiefswhoconvenedameetingat
whichA1statedthathisfatherhadgonetoBukakataandhewasaskedbyth
egatheringtobringproofofthisstatementonanappointedday.A1nevertu
rnedupontheappointeddaybutlaterturnedupallegingthathisfatherhad
givenhimauthoritytolookafterhishouse.HewastakentotheSubcountyC
hiefbeforewhomhedeniedthewhereaboutsofhisfather.Thesearchforth
edeceasedstartedinJune1988,A1whohadinthemeantimedisappearedf
romthevillagereappearedandwastakentopolicebeforeheadmittedkillin
gthedeceasedtogetherwithA2andA3.ThroughA1’sdirectionthebodyoft
hedeceasedwasdugupfromwhereithadbeenburied.

Inthemeantimecoaccused2(A2)wasarrested.Otherevidencewasofalan
ddisputebetweenthedeceasedandA2&A3,evidenceofthepoliceofficeri
nchargeofthecasewhoontopofarrangingtheexhumationofthedecease
d,arrangedformedicalexaminationbyadoctorandrecordingofA1’Sextra
judicialstatementbeforeagrade11magistrate.Medicalexaminationrev
ealedafractureofthescaleonesandalargecrackextendingtooccipitalbo
nes.Thecauseofdeathwasbleedingtobraindamage.

TheextrajudicialstatementwasinthenatureofaconfessioninwhichA1nar
ratedhowhegotinvolvedintheplottokillhisfather.Itstartedhesaid,when
hemovedtoliveinthehouseofA2asapayingguestashisfatherwasmistrea
tinghim.WhenstayingwithA2,hewastoldbyA2aboutthelandalreadyme
ntionedandofthepreviousunsuccessfulattemptstokillthedeceasedbyA
2&A3andthatheagreedtofacilitatethedeathofhisfatherbyA2&A3.Thatt
hishappenedononeeveningwhenhewasdigginginhisfather’sgardenwh
ereA2dugapitandwhenthedeceasedcameatabout7.pmtocheckonhisw
orkA2&A3whowerehidingnearbyjumpedout;A3caughtthedeceasedwh
ileA2seizedthehoefromA1andhitthedeceasedwithittwiceonthehead.T
hedeceasedwaspushedintothepitandburied.

A1’Sstatementwasadenialofinvolvementinthecrimeandanexplanation
ofhowsomepropertiesofthedeceasedcametobeinhishouse.

DuringsubmissionsCounselforA2&A3arguedthattheevidenceoftheextr
ajudicialstatementneededcorroborationorsupportbyindependentevid
ence.

Held:Itwasheldinteralia:-

1. Althoughaconfessionofacoaccusedcouldbetakenintoconsiderati
onagainstafellowaccusedperson,thisbeingoftheweakestkind,co
uldonlybeusedaslendingassurancetootherevidencebutcouldnot
beusedtoformthebasisofthecaseagainstanotheraccused.Therea
sonforconsideringsuchevidenceastheevidenceoftheweakestkin
dwasthatitwasnotonlyhearsay,butitwasevidenceofsuchanaturet
hatthecoaccusedcouldn’ttestincross-
examinationofthemakeragainsthim.
2. Credibleandindependentevidencewasrequiredtosupportsuchac
onfession.
3. Asregardsthevalueofaconfessionagainstthemaker,itistritelawth
ataconfessionshouldbetakenasawholeitwasalsoclearlawthatitne
edednottobebelievedasawholeordisbelievedasawhole.Itwasope
ntothetrialjudgetoacceptpartofthestatementandrejectallofit.A1
wasfoundguiltywhileA2&A3notfoundguilty.

InthecaseofGopa&othersvR(1953)20EACA318itwasheldthatthewe
ightofevidenceofaconfessionbyanaccusedagainstcoaccusedislessene
dwhereheobviouslyintendstoimplicatehiscoaccusedandnothimselfalt
houghactuallyhedoesfullyimplicatehimself.

Procedureforrecordingconfessions.

Thequestionistowhomandhowtheconfessionismade.Accordingtosecti
on23oftheEvidenceActnoconfessionmadebyanypersonwhileheorsheis
inthecustodyofthepoliceshallbeprovedagainstanysuchpersonunlessiti
smadeintheimmediatepresenceofapoliceofficeroforabovetherank
ofAssistantInspectororamagistrate.Thesectiongoesaheadtoprovi
dethatnopersonshallbeconvictedofanoffencesolelyonthebasisofaconf
essionunlesstheconfessioniscorroboratedbyothermaterialevid
enceinsupportoftheconfessionimplicatingthatperson.

TheprocedureforrecordingconfessionsisfoundintheEvidence(Stateme
nttoPoliceOfficers)Rulesandcaselaw.Theprocedureformagistratesisill
ustratedinthecaseofUgandavDoyiWabwireKyoyo(1976)HCB213.J
usticeSekandilaiddownthefollowingprocedure.

1. Whenanaccusedpersonorsuspectisbroughttoamagistratethema
gistrateshouldensurethatthepoliceorprisonsofficerescortingthea
ccusedleavesthechambers.
2. Themagistrateshouldaskhiscourtclerktositinthechamberswithhi
msoastoguardagainstunnecessaryallegationsandtoactasaninter
preterwherenecessary.
3. TheMagistrateshouldusecourtpaperinrecordinganystatementfro
mtheaccused.
4. Theaccusedshouldbeinformedofthechargeagainsthimifinfacthe
hasbeencharged.Ifhehasnotbeenchargedbefore,themagistrates
houldinformhimoftheallegationsbroughtbythepoliceasclearlyas
possiblesothattheaccusedisinnodoubtastothenatureofthecharg
ewhichheislikelytofaceanduponwhichthestatementislikelytobea
dducedasevidenceatthetrial.
5. Immediatelyuponbeinginformedofthecharge,themagistratesho
uldcautiontheaccusedinthefollowingterms:

“Youneednotsayanythingunlessyouwishbutwhateveryoudosayw
illbetakendowninwritingandmaybegiveninevidence”

6. Thentheaccusedshouldbeinformedthathehasnothingtofearorho
peforinmakingastatementbeforethemagistrate.
7. Iftheaccusedvolunteersastatementthenthisshouldberecordedint
helanguageusedbytheaccusedandanEnglishtranslationmadeofit
.Bothstatementsshouldbereadbacktotheaccusedwhoshouldsign
ifyhisagreementwiththecontentswithhissignatureorthumbmark.
Thenthemagistrateshouldcountersignbothstatementsanddateth
em.

AccordingtothecaseofNjuguna&othersvR(1954)21EACA316itwas
heldthatitisinadvisableifnotimproperforthepoliceofficerwhoisconducti
ngtheinvestigationofthecase,tochargeandrecordthecautionedstatem
entoftheaccused.AccordingtothecaseofUgandavKalema&Another(
1974)HCB)142,itisclearlyindicatedthatsuchasectionmeansthattheac
cusedshouldappearbeforeanimpartialpersonwhoknewnothingaboutth
ebackgroundofthecase.Thismeansthatthecourtshavetobeontheirguar
dtoseethatthepurposeoftheexercisewasnotdefeatedbybackdoorpract
ices.Theaccusedwasinterrogatedbyapoliceofficerwhobriefedthemagis
trateandherethemagistratecouldnotberegardedasanimpartialperson.

IDENTIFICATION
MeaningofIdentification

Identityofathingorpersonisanexpressionofopinionthatthatthingorpers
onresemblesanotherthingorpersonsomuchsothatitislikelytobethesam
ethingorperson.Itisacomparisonthatlooksforresemblances.

Incriminallaw,theidentityofanaccusedmustbeestablishedandthatpers
onhastobeshowntobetheonewhocommittedtheparticularoffence.Ther
efore,therehastobeaprocessthroughwhichtheaccusedisconnectedtot
hecrimeandthisprocessisreferredtoasidentification.

Likewiseincivilcases,identityisimportant.Anypersonwhowishestoinstit
uteacaseagainstanothermustclearlydescribetheidentityofthatotherpe
rsonandwherethepersonisfound.

Theprocessofidentificationincriminallawusuallyseekstoensurethefollo
wing:

● Thepersonidentifyingmusthaveseenorobservedthepersonbeingi
dentified.
● Theidentifyingpersonmusthavehadasettledimpressioninhis/
hermindattherelevanttimei.e.heorshemustnothavebeeninpanic.
● Thementalpictureapersonhasatthetimeofidentificationmustbeth
esameasthatheorshehadwhenheorshefirstsawtheaccused.Itmu
stnotbetaintedbyotherfactorsoropinionsofthirdparties.
● Thetimetakeninidentifyingtheaccusedpersonisimportant.Ifforex
ampleitisashortperiodsuchasafewseconds,itmaynotbeenoughfo
rapersontonotice.
● Considerationmustalsobegiventothoseopportunitiesallowingfor
properidentification.Thisisgenerallyreferredtoastheconditionsan
dcircumstancesidealforidentificationsuchastimetaken,amounto
flight,distancebetweentheidentifierandtheaccusedpersonandw
hetherthesuspectwasknowntotheidentifierbeforeorisacomplete
stranger.

Anaccusedpersonmaybeidentifiedincourt,atanidentificationparadeort
hroughpreviousconduct.

Identificationparade

Identificationparadesarenormallyconductedbythepoliceduringinvesti
gationsinanattempttoidentifytheaccusedorsuspectwiththeoffencefor
whichheorsheischargedorsuspected.Thepurposeoftheparadeistofindo
utfromthewitnesswhoclaimstohaveseentheaccusedorsuspectatthesc
eneofthecrimewhetherhecanidentifytheaccusedorsuspectastheperso
nheorshesawpreviouslyatthesceneofthecrimeoractuallycommittingth
eoffence.Thewitnessmusthaveseenthesuspectpreviously,lestthepara
dewillbeofnoevidentialvalue.Inaddition,thewitnessshouldnothavesee
nthesuspectsubsequenttohisorherarrest,ashisorheridentificationatth
eparademaybesaidtobebasedonhisorherhavingseenthesuspectaftera
rrestandnotatthetimethecrimewascommitted.

Inordertoensurethatidentificationparadesareconductedfairly,theHigh
CourtofUgandahasapprovedcertainrulesforconductingidentificationp
arades.

See: SentalevUganda(1968)EA365
RvMwango(1936)3EACA29
SimonMusokevR(1958)EA715

Thepoliceofficerconductingtheparadeisrequiredtoensurethefollowing:
1. Thattheaccusedpersonisalwaysinformedthathemayhaveanadvo
cateorfriendpresentwhentheparadetakesplace;
2. Thattheofficerinchargeofthecase,althoughhemaybepresent,doe
snotcarryouttheidentification;
3. Thatthewitnessdoesnotseetheaccusedbeforetheparade;
4. Thattheaccusedisplacedamongatleasteightpersonsasfaraspossi
ble,ofsimilarage,height,generalappearanceandclassoflifeashim
selforherself;
5. Thattheaccusedisallowedtotakeanypositionheorshewishesafter
eachidentifyingwitnesshasleftifhesodesires;
6. Careshouldbeexercisedthatthewitnessesarenotallowedtocomm
unicatewitheachotheraftertheyhavebeentotheparade;
7. Excludeeverypersonwhohasnobusinessthere;
8. Makeacarefulnoteaftereachwitnessleavestheparade,recordingw
hetherthewitnessidentifies,orothercircumstances;
9. Ifthewitnessdesirestoseetheaccusedwalk,hearhimspeak,seehim
withhishatonoroff,seethatthisisdone.Asaprecautionarymeasure,
itisbeingsuggestedthewholeparadebeaskedtodothis.
10. Seethatthewitnesstouchesthepersonheorsheidentifies.
11. Atthepreparationoftheparadeorduringtheparadeasktheaccusedi
fheorsheissatisfiedthattheparadeisbeingconductedinafairmann
erandmakeanoteofhisorherreply.
12. Inintroducingthewitness,tellhimorherthatheorshewillseeagroup
ofpeoplewhomayormaynotcontainthesuspectedperson.Donotsa
y“Pickoutsomebody”orinfluencehimorherinanywaywhatsoever.
13. Actwithscrupulousfairness,otherwisethevalueoftheidentification
asevidencewilldepreciateconsiderably.

ThefollowingextractisfromthecaseofKurongStanleyvUganda(Cour
tofAppealCivilAppealNo.314of2003)[2008]UGCA11

“Wenowturntothemeritsoftheappeal.Wefinditconvenienttobeginwitht
heevidenceoftheidentificationparade.Thelearnedtrialjudgeconsidere
dtheevidenceatlengthandcametotheconclusionthattheparadewascon
ductedinaccordancewiththeruleslaiddowninRepublicvsMwangas/
oManaa(1936)EACA29.Itisthisconclusionthatwaschallengedbythea
ppellants’counselatthetrialoftheappeal.Webeginwithhissubmissionth
attheappellantwasneverinformedofhisrighttorequestthatalawyerbepr
esentattheparadeandthatthisomissionwasfataltothewholeparade.Co
unselreliedonthecaseofSsesangaStephenvsUgandaCivilAppealN
o.85of2000(CA)inwhichthisCourtheldthattherightoftheaccusedtobe
informedthathecouldhavehislawyerpresentwasmandatoryandfailuret
oinformhimwouldbefataltotheparade.Intheinstantcase,theappellantw
asaskedwhetherhehadanadvocatewhomhewishedtoattendandheans
weredinthenegative.Inourview,thefactthattheappellantwasaskedwhe
therhehadlawyershouldhavealertedhimtothepossibilitythathecouldha
vealawyerpresentifhewishedtohaveonepresent.Hecouldhaveaskedth
ereandthenwhether,ifhehadone,hewouldbeallowedtoattend.Instead,
hesimplyansweredthathehadnolawyerandnevercomplainedthereafte
rabouttheabsenceofoneattheidentificationparade.Wethinkthatthisca
seisdistinguishablefromtheSsesangacasewheretheappellantwasne
veralertedtothepossibilitythathecouldrequirethatanadvocateorafrien
dattendstheparade.
Thesecondobjectiontotheparadeisthatwitnessesattheparadeweresho
wntheappellantbeforetheexercisewasconducted.Wehavereadtheevid
enceofPW7,theofficerwhocarriedouttheparade,andtheappellant’sown
evidenceonthematter.Wedonotfindanyevidencetosupportthatclaim.T
helearnedtrialjudgecanbeforgivenforrejectingtheappellant’sevidence
onthematterbecause,onthewhole,shefoundthathewasan“inveterate
liar”.Asthetrialjudgewhohadtheopportunitytoseeallthewitnesses,incl
udingtheappellant,inthewitnessbox,shewasentitledtomakethatfindin
g.

Thethirdobjectionwasthatattheparade,theappellantwaslinedupwithp
eopleofdissimilarappearanceinsizeandheightwhichmadeiteasytobeid
entified.

TherulesinMwangacase(supra)requirethattheaccusedshouldbeplac
edasfaraspossiblewithpersonsofsimilarage,generalappearanceandcla
ssoflifeofhimselforherself.AccordingtoPW7OjokBonawhoconductedth
eparade,mostofthevolunteerswhoparticipatedintheparadewere“alm
ostofsamesize”withthesuspect.Wealsonotethatmostofthevolunteer
swereagedbetween18and31yearsexceptonewhowasaged37whichwa
salsotheageoftheappellant.Itisnotalwaysaneasymattertoassembleeig
htvolunteersofsimilarage,heightandsize,butalleffortshouldbemadeto
wardsthatdirectionsothatthesuspectdoesnotstandoutasmanifestlydis
tinctfromallotherparticipants.Weaccepttheevidenceofthepoliceofficer
(PW7)thathelinedupeightpeopleofsimilarappearancesoftheappellants
avethatonlyoneofthemwasofhisage.However,sincethewitnessesdidno
tknowtheageoftheappellant,thiscouldnothaveoccasionedamiscarriag
eofjusticeorprejudicethejudgmentofthewitnesses.Moreover,thiswasn
otoneofthereasonsthattheappellantadvancedagainstthefairnessofthe
wholeexercisewhenhewasaskedwhetherhewassatisfiedwiththecondu
ctoftheparade.Weholdthattheirregularityonagedifferentialisminorand
didnotprejudicethefairnessofthewholeexercise.

Finally,counselchallengedthefairnessoftheconductoftheparadeonthe
groundthatitwassuggestedtothewitnessesthatthemanwhomtheysawi
nGuluatthesceneofcrimewasdefinitelyoneoftheninemenparaded.Acc
ordingtoDW7,hewasinstructingtheidentifyingwitnesstowalkalongthep
aradeandtotouchthepersonhe/shesawinGuluifhe/
sherecognisedone.Fourwitnessesweretoldthesamethingandtheypick
edouttheappellant.Theappellanthimselfagreesthatthiswastheproced
ureused.CounselfortheappellantdidnottellusthewordsPW7usedthatsu
ggestedthatthesuspectwouldbeintheparade.Wedonotagreethatthein
structionsPW7gavethewitnessessuggestedwhatcounselfortheappella
ntiscomplainingof.Allhesaidwasthatifyourecogniseamongthesepeopl
ethemanyousawinGulu,thentouchhim.TheuseofthewordIFclearlyleftt
hepossibilitythatthesuspectmaybethereandyoudon’trecognisehimor
hemaynotbethereatall.Thisobjectiontothefairnessoftheparadeisunfou
ndedandwerejectit.

Onthewhole,wefindthattherewereafewminorirregularitiesintheexerci
sebutonthewholetheydidnotprejudicethefairnessoftheidentificationp
arade.BothPW7(thepolicewitness)andtheappellanthimselfagreethatf
ourwitnessespickedouttheappellantfromtheline.Weagreewiththetrial
courtthattherewasnocredibleevidencethatthreeGululodgewitnessesw
hopickedtheappellantfromthelinewereshowntheappellantbeforethee
xercisebegan.Itisunfortunatethattwoofthemdidnottestifyincourtbutth
eappellanthimselftestifiedthattheypickedhimoutoftheparadeofeightv
olunteers.Weholdthattheidentificationparadewasconductedproperlya
ndfairly.”

Conditionsnecessaryforaproperidentification

Theleadingauthorityisthecaseof:

AbudalaNabulere&2OthersvUganda,CourtofAppealCr.App.No.
12of1981;[1979]HCB77

Held:Thecourtobservedthefollowing:
 “Wherethecaseagainsttheaccuseddependswhollyorsubstantiall
yonthecorrectnessofoneormoreidentificationsoftheaccused,whi
chthedefencedisputes,thejudgeshouldwarnhimselfandtheasses
sorsofthespecialneedforcautionbeforeconvictingtheaccusedinre
lianceonthecorrectidentificationoridentifications.Thereasonforth
especialcautionisthatthereisapossibilitythatamistakenwitnessca
nbeaconvincingone,thatevenanumberofsuchwitnessescanallbe
mistaken.Thejudgeshouldthenexaminecloselythecircumstances
theidentificationcametobemade,particularlythelengthoftime,the
distance,thelight,thefamiliarityofthewitnesswiththeaccused.Allt
hesefactorsgotothequalityoftheidentificationevidence.Ifthequali
tyisgoodthedangerofmistakenidentityisreduced,butthepoorerth
equalitythegreaterthedanger.”

AbdallahbinWendo&AnothervR20EACA166

Facts:Theappellantswereconvictedofmurderofaplantationwatchman
onaverydarknight.

Held:Thetrialjudgeconvictedtheappellantsfeelingitsafetoacceptevide
nceofonemanMastotheiridentity.

Identificationbyasinglewitness

See: AreetSamvUgandaSupremeCourtCriminalAppeal20/2005

AmootiImmaculatevUgandaHighCourtCriminalAppeal27of200
7

Unders.133oftheEvidenceAct,noparticularnumberofwitnessesisrequir
edtoproveanyfact.Accordingly,evenasinglewitnesscanbecalledtoprov
eafact.However,becauseofthedangersassociatedwithsuchtestimony,t
hecourtshavesetoutcertainrulesinthisregard.

UgandavGeorgeWilsonSimbwaSct.Cr.AppNo.37of1995

Facts:Therespondentwastriedandacquittedofmurder.TheDPPappeale
dagainsttheacquittalarguingthattheappealinvolvesapointoflawofpubli
cimportance.Itwasallegedthatonenightwhilethedeceasedandhissong
uardedtheirbananaplantationagainstthieveswhousedtostealtheirban
anas,therespondent,armedwithaspearandapangawenttotheplantatio
ntosteal.Thedeceased’ssonsawhimandthedeceasedwentforwardtoco
nfronthimbutwasspearedbytherespondent.Thesonraisedanalarmwhic
hmanyvillagersanswered.Whentheyarrivedatthescenethedeceasedw
asstillaliveandtoldthemthathehadbeenstabbedbytherespondent.Ther
espondentlivedonthesamevillageasthedeceasedandwaswell-
knowntothedeceased’sfamily.Thetrialjudgefoundtheconditionsintheb
ananaplantationunfavourableforeasyidentification.Thatitwasinavalle
y,noevidencewasgiventoshowthatthetwocelltorchheldbythedeceased
’ssongaveoutlightofsufficientintensity,noevidencewasledtoshowhowt
heclustersintheplantationwerespaced,interalia.

Held:
(SupremeCourt):Thelawregardingidentificationbyasinglewitnessisno
wwellsettledandquotedanumberofcases,

“Briefly,thelawisthatalthoughidentificationofanaccusedperson
canbeprovedbythetestimonyofasinglewitnessthisdoesnotlesse
ntheneedfortestingitwiththegreatestcareespeciallywhentheco
nditionsfavouringcorrectidentificationaredifficult.Circumstance
stotakeintoaccountincludethepresenceandnatureoflight,wheth
ertheaccusedpersonisknowntothewitnessbeforetheincidentorn
ot,thelengthoftimeandtheopportunitythewitnesshadtoseethea
ccusedandthedistancebetweenthem.Whereconditionsareunfav
ourableforcorrectidentification,whatisneededisotherevidencep
ointingtoguiltfromwhichitcanbereasonablyconcludedthattheevi
denceofidentificationcansafelybeacceptedasfreefrompossibilit
yoferror.Thetruetestisnotwhethertheevidenceofsuchawitnessis
reliable.Awitnessmaybetruthfulandhisevidenceapparentlyrelia
bleandyetthereisstillariskofanhonestmistakeparticularlyinident
ification.Thetruetestis...whethertheevidencecanbeacceptedasf
reefromthepossibilityoferror.”

TheSupremeCourtfurtherobservedthatthedeceased’ssonwascarrying
atorchcontainingtwodrybatterycells(twoweeksold),hadflashedthetorc
hattherespondentwhowasonlysixmetresawayfromthewitness,thewitn
esshadknownhimforsevenyearsandlivedinthesamevillageandwaseve
nabletodescribetheclothestheaccusedwaswearingwhichevidencewas
unchallenged.Thatalthoughthetrialjudgehadproperlydirectedhimselfo
nthelawapplicabletoevidenceofidentificationbysinglewitnessbutmisa
ppliedthelawtherebyreachingawrongconclusion.Theevidenceofidenti
ficationwasalsocorroboratedbythedyingdeclarationwhichruledoutany
mistakenidentity.

Identificationthroughpreviousconduct

Seegenerallysimilarfactevidence.

OPINIONEVIDENCE
Anopinionisastatementastowhatapersonthinksaboutanallegedfact,wh
etherornotittookplace,whocausedit,whyorwhenitoccurred.

Mattersofopinionareconclusionsdrawnbyapersoninreferencetoparticu
larinferences.Ordinarily,witnessesareinvitedtotestifyinCourtwheneve
rit’snecessarytogivetestimonialevidenceandwhenthishappens,theyar
easkedtogiveevidenceoffactsastheyperceivedthem.Thisisbecauseoft
hegeneralrulethatopinionsofwitnessesastotheexistenceoffacts-in-
issueorrelevantfactsareinadmissible.

Reasonswhyopinionevidenceisinadmissible:

1. Theopinionofawitnesswillmostlikelybepartialtothepartywhocalle
dhimtogiveevidence;
2. Opinionevidenceinmostcasesislikelytobeinfluencedbymattersof
hearsay.
However,aswithallgeneralrules,thereareinstancesofexceptioninwhich
opinionevidencewillbeadmissible.SeeSs.43-
49EvidenceAct,whichrecognise2categoriesofopinionevidenceasadmi
ssible:

1. Expertevidence
2. Opinionsofordinarywitnesses(non-expertevidence)

Expertevidence

S.43EvidenceAct:Whenthecourthastoformanopinionuponapointoffore
ignlaw,orofscienceorart,orastoidentityofhandwritingorfingerimpressi
ons,theopinionsuponthatpointofpersonsspeciallyskilledinthatforeignl
aw,scienceorart,orinquestionsastotheidentityofhandwritingorfingeri
mpressions,arerelevantfacts.Suchpersonsarecalledexperts.

Howdoesonebecomeanexpert?

Thedecisionastowhetherawitnessisqualifiedtogiveevidenceofopiniona
sanexpertismadebytheJudgeswhoarethustheexpertofexperts.Itmust,
however,benotedthatanexpertcannotbindthecourt.Thecourtlistensan
ddecidesforitselfwhichexpert’sevidencetoaccept.Anumberoffactorsar
econsideredindeterminingwhetherornotoneisanexpert:

1. Educationalbackground

S.43oftheEvidenceActmakesreferenceto‘specialskill’.Howisthisacquir
ed?
Possiblythrougheducationalbackground.Ordinarily,onewouldberegar
dedasanexpertifhehasaneducationalbackgroundwhichenableshimtob
ecomeconversantwiththesubjectheisexpectedtotestifyon.However,b
eforeevidenceofsuchperson’sevidenceisregardedasexpert,hiseducati
onalbackgroundmustfirstbeputonrecordandeachfieldofexpertisewillre
quiredefinitequalifications.

RvGatheru

Held:

“Courthasonseveraloccasionssaidthatwhenatrialcourthas
toformanopinionuponthequestionwhetherahome-
madegunorpartthereof,isalethalbarrelledweapon,itmusth
avetheassistanceofexpertopinionthatwethinkthatsuchspe
cialskillisnotconfinedtoknowledgeacquiredacademically,b
 utwouldalsoincludeskillacquiredbypracticalexperiencetha
tinthepresentcircumstances,eventhoughapoliceofficerem
ployedonoperationalorinvestigationwork,acquiresasuffici
entpracticalknowledgetoqualifyhimasanexpert,hiscompet
enceasanexpertshouldinallcases,beshownbeforehistesti
monyisproperlyadmitted.”

MohammedAhmedvR

CourtinregardtotheissueintheGatherucaseheld:

“TheruleinGatherurequiringcompetenceofawitnesstobees
tablishedwasoneofpractice,omissionofwhoseobservance
wouldnotinallcases,rendertheevidenceinadmissible.Thatr
ulewillbeappliedmorestrictlyincriminalthanincivilproceedi
ngswhereitcanbeoverlooked.”

OundovR

Facts:Theappellantwasconvictedofdrivingamotorcyclewhileun
dertheinfluenceofalcohol.Itwasnotdisputedthatthemanwasfoun
dhelplessontheroad.Atthetrial,apoliceofficertestifiedthatwhenh
efoundtheman,hecouldnotstandononeleg,givehisnameandinan
swertothequestions,couldonlycrowlikeacock.Intheofficer’sopini
on,theappellantwastoodrunktobecapableofcontrollingthevehicl
e.Adoctoralsogaveevidenceregardinghisprofessionalopinionab
outtheappellant’smentalstateatthetime.

Issue:Whethertheopinionofthepoliceofficerwasadmissibleasex
pertevidenceorasevidenceatall?

Held:Thepoliceofficerwasnotanexpertwitnessatall;Hecouldn’tg
ivehisopinionastowhathethoughtthementalstateoftheaccusedw
as,sincehewasnotqualifiedinsuchmatters(i.e.didn’thavethemen
taltraining).However,thedoctor’sevidencewasadmissiblesinceh
ehadthenecessaryeducationalbackgroundtobeabletogiveanaut
horitativeopiniononthementalstateoftheappellant.

2. Experience

Expertwitnessesmaynotnecessarilyhaveformaltrainingintheareasthe
ytestifyuponassuchapersonpresentedasanexpertneedn’tbeanexperto
rspecialistintheprofessionaloracademicsenseoftheword.Theymayjust
beskilledorexperiencedinthebranchofknowledgeconcernedevenifthee
xerciseofsuchaskillortheacquisitionofsuchknowledgeisnotpartofhisge
neraloccupation,inwhichcase,experiencemeansthatthepersonwillhav
ebeenactiveinacertainfieldforsometime.Theperiodforwhichapersonisr
equiredtobeactiveisrelative,dependingonthecircumstancesofeachcas
e.

RvSilverlock

Facts:Therewasadisputeastotheidentityofhandwritingoftheaccused.
Asolicitorwascalledtotestifytothatidentity.Hisrelevanceinthematterwa
sthathe’dbeeninthehabitofperusingoldparishbillsandregistersdrafted
byvariousindividualsforover30years.Heclaimedtobeanexpertastohan
dwriting.Anobjectionwasraisedclaimingthatsincethesolicitorhadnofor
maltraininginthefieldofhandwriting,hecouldn’tgiveexpertevidence.

Held:Courtallowedthesolicitortotestifyandheldthathisexperienceinpe
rusingdocumentspartlyforprofessionaluseandpartlyforprivatepurpose
senabledhimtoacquireexperienceinhandwritingalthoughhehadn’tacq
uiredanyformaleducation.

UgandavNtura

Facts:TherewasanaccidentcausedbyaUzigun.Inabidtoestablishthech
aracteristicsofaUzigunsoastoshowifitcouldhavecausedtheaccident,ap
oliceofficerwascalledtotestifyasanexpertonguns.Itwasestablishedthat
hewasanexpertsince1949andthathe’dhadahabitoftrainingonfirearms.

Issue:Whethertheaccidentcouldhavebeencausedbysuchagun?

Held:Thepoliceman’sprofessionalexperiencecoupledwithsomespecia
lisedstudyoffirearmsqualifiedhimtobeanexpertwitnessinthematterofg
uns.

RvOakeley[1979]70Cr.AppReports7

Facts:Apolicemanwascalledasanexpertinanaccident.Hehadworked1
5yearsinroadtrafficservice,takenasaqualifyingexaminaccidentinvesti
gationanditwasshownthathehadinvestigatedmorethan400casesoftra
fficaccidents.

Held:Hequalifiedasanexpert.

UgandavOgwang
Facts/
Held:Amedicalassistantwasheldtobeanexpertforpurposesofclassifyin
gharmsasdangerousornotdangerousandinjuriesasfatalorminor.Inordi
narypractice,sucharethedutiesofamedicaldoctor.Thiscasealsoconside
rsjudgesasexperts.

Apersonwhoqualifiesasanexpertafterhehasestablishedhisexpertiseise
xpectedtotestifybygivinghisopinionbeforecourt.Oralevidencemustthe
reforebedirect.However,intheprovisotos.59givesexceptions:

Providedtheopinionsofexpertsexpressedinanytreatisecommonlyoffer
edforsale,andthegroundsonwhichthoseopinionsareheld,maybeprove
dbytheproductionofthosetreatisesif:

i) theauthorisdead;
ii) cannotbefound;
iii) hasbecomeincapableofgivingevidence;
iv) Cannotbecalledasawitnesswithoutanamountofdelayorexpens
ewhichthecourtregardsasunreasonable.
(ForexampleifProf.Harris,anauthorityonthelawisrequiredtogiv
eevidenceanditisimpossibleforhimtotraveltoUganda,youcanu
sehiswritingsorbookasauthority.)Inpracticeitisnotgoodtoquot
eapersonwho’salive,therationalebeingtheycouldchangetheir
mindonthematter.

S.49:Whenevertheopinionofanylivingpersonisrelevant,thegroundson
whichthatopinionisbasedarealsorelevant,i.e.thereasonsforsuchopinio
narepartandparceloftheevidencebeinggiven.

S.44:Facts,nototherwiserelevant,arerelevantiftheysupportorareincon
sistentwiththeopinionsofexperts,whenthoseopinionsarerelevant,i.e.e
xpertevidenceisnotconclusiveonanymatterbecauseitisincourt’sdiscre
tiontodecidewhetherornottotakeitandalso,expertevidenceisopentoqu
estionandchallenges.

TheValueofExpertEvidence

Expertevidencehelpscourtunderstandmattersoffactwhichinturnenabl
ecourtdecideonlegalissuesinvolved.

SuttonvR

Issue:Whetherevidenceofanexpertissubjecttoexamination?
Held:It’sthedutyofacourttocriticallyexaminealltheevidencebeforeitw
hetheritisgivenbyanexpertwitnessoranyotherwitness.Thetrialmagistr
atemisdirectedhimselfwhenheattachedalotofweighttotheboldstatem
entofthepathologistinpresumingwithoutanyevidencethattheappellant
’sresistancetotheeffectsofdrinkwaslaw.

Sees.49

HusseinvR

Facts:Thiscaseconcernedthedeterminationoftheagesof2sonsoftheap
pellant.ItwasinitiatedbytheImmigrationdepartmentchargingtheappell
antwithmakingafalsestatement.Hehadstatedhissonsasbeingbornin19
40and1944.Anexpertradiologistwasbroughtintodeterminetheage.

Held:Evidencegivenbytheradiologistabouttheageofthe2sonsestablis
hedbyx-
rayexaminationindicatedthattheonesonwasbornin1937andtheotherin
1915.Althoughsuchevidencewasnotinfallible,itwasmostunlikelytobew
rongby3and6yearsrespectively.

DeSouzavSharma

Issue:Whethertheconstructionboardhadarighttorejectorquestionexp
ertevidence?

Held:Courtconsideredtheevidenceoftheexpertwitnessesandrejectedt
heirestimatesasintheviewoftheboard,theywereveryhigh.Referringtos.
49atthetime,courtsaidthathadtheboarddonethiswithoutgivingreasons
,theirrejectionmighthavebeenunjudicial,butgaveit2reasonsbasedonlo
werfiguresadmittedbytheappellant.Thecourtisnotboundtoacceptthee
videnceofexpertsifitfindsgoodreasonfornotdoingso.

SalumvR

Facts:Thiscaseconcernedidentificationofhandwritingbyexperts.Thee
xpertsaidinhisevidencethathehadnodoubtthattheforgedsignaturehad
beenwrittenbytheappellant.

Held:Themostthatahandwritingexpertcanproperlysayinanappropriat
ecaseisthathedoesnotbelieveaparticularwritingwasbyaparticularpers
on,butnotsopositivelythatthe2writingsarethesame.Thehandwritingex
pertshouldhavepointedouttheparticularfeaturesofsimilarityordissimil
aritybetweentheforgedsignatureonthereceiptandthespecimensgiven
andconsequently,becauseofhisfailuretodoso,hisevidencewasofnovalu
e.

Principles:Ahandwritingexpertisnotapersonwhotellsyou‘thisistheha
ndwritingofsuchandsuchamanorwoman.’Heisapersonwhohabituatedt
otheexaminationofhandwritingpractisedinthetaskofmakingminuteex
aminationofhandwritingdirectstheattentionofotherstothingswhichhes
uggestsaresimilarities.Thatandnomorethanthat,ishislegitimateprovin
ce.

Court,however,distinguishesbetweenidentificationofhandwritingandfi
nger-
printorimpressionidentification.Itsaystheyarenotthesame;thatthereis
apresumptionwhendealingwithfingerprintsthatno2personshaveidenti
calfingerprints.Courtsaysthereisnosuchpresumptionthatno2personsh
avesimilarhandwritings.

SeeWalusimbivStandardBank(Leadingcaseonhandwriting)

RvSmith

Facts:Theappellantwaschargedwithassaultingapersonwhointeralia,p
utupadefenceofautomatism(sleepwalking).2psychiatristsbroughtevid
encethathesufferedfromautomatism.

Issue:Whetherthepsychiatrists’expertevidencewasrelevanttodeterm
ineautomatism?

Held:Sincethequestionwhethertheapplicanthadactedinastateofauto
matismwasinissueandsinceautomatismwasaconditionoutsidetheexpe
rienceoftheordinarylayperson,thepsychiatrists’expertevidencewasrel
evantandnecessarytohelpthejurydeterminewhethertheapplicant’sdef
enceofautomatismwasvalid.Inreferencetos.44,thejudgehadrightlyexe
rcisedhisdiscretiontopermitthecross-
examinationoftheappellantandthepsychiatriststobecalledaswitnesses
.

UgandavOpioRichard[1986]HCB19

Held:Insexualoffences,thecomplainantsoughttobesubjectedtomedic
alexaminationwheneverthatispossibleasitoftenturnsouttobecrucialtot
hecase.
UgandavIndibarema

Facts:Evidenceofagombololaaskariwastenderedtoidentifyanexhibit(
agun).Nopoliceofficerwascalledtoidentifytheexhibitandtherewasnore
cordastowhattypeoffirearmitwas.

Issue:Whetherornotthegombololaaskariwasanexpertonfirearms?

Held:

1) Courtcannotacceptthegombololaaskariasbeinginanywaysufficie
ntlyknowledgeableinmattersconcerningfirearmssincetheirtraini
ngandexperienceisveryinadequateandtheyaren’treallycapableo
finvestigatingacrime.
2) Specialskillinaparticularscienceisnotconfinedtoknowledgeacquir
edacademically,butitwouldalsoincludeskillacquiredbypracticale
xperience.
3) CourtestablishedthatinUgandatherewasnoballisticsexpertatthet
ime.However,incasesconcerningfirearms,expertevidencemustb
eadduced,anditwasavailableinUganda.

OpinionEvidenceofLaypersons(Seess.45-49)

A. S.45Opinionastohandwriting,whenrelevant

Whenthecourthastoformanopinionastothepersonbywhomanydocume
ntwaswrittenorsigned,theopinionofanypersonacquaintedwiththehand
writingofthepersonbywhomitissupposedtobewrittenorsignedthatitwa
sorwasnotwrittenorsignedbythatpersonisarelevantfact.

Notethedifferencebetweens.43and45.S.43speaksofspecialskillwhiles.
45referstoacquaintance.

Apersonissaidtobeacquaintedwiththehandwritingofanotherpersonwh
en:

1) heorshehasseenthatpersonwrite;
2) heorshehasreceiveddocumentspurportingtobewrittenbythatper
soninanswertodocumentswrittenbyhimselforherselforunderhiso
rherauthorityandaddressedtothatperson;
3) intheordinarycourseofbusiness,documentspurportingtobewritte
nbythatpersonhavebeenhabituallysubmittedtohimorher.

SeeRvSilverlock
B. S.46Opinionastorightorcustom

Whenthecourthastoformanopinionastotheexistenceofanygeneralcust
omorright,theopinionsastotheexistenceofthatcustomorright,ofperson
swhowouldbelikelytoknowofitsexistenceifitexisted,arerelevant.

Theexpression“generalcustomorright”includescustomsorrightscomm
ontoanyconsiderableclassofpersons.Thissectionseemswiderthans.47.

CasevRuguru

Held:Specialexpertisewasnotneededtoprovetheexistenceofamarriag
eintheEmbucustom,however,youmustbelikelytoknow,e.g.bybeingam
emberofthattribeorgroupofpeople.Itmusthavebeeninexistencefor6or
moremonths.

C. S.47Opinionastousages,tenets,etc.,whenrelevant.

Whenthecourthastoformanopinionasto:

a) theusagesandtenetsofanybodyofmenorfamily;
b) theconstitutionandgovernmentofanyreligiousorcharitablefound
ation;
c) themeaningofwordsortermsusedinparticulardistrictsorbyparticu
larclassesofpeople,theopinionofpersonshavingspecialmeansoft
heknowledgethereonarerelevantfacts.

D. S.48Opinionastorelationships

Whenthecourthastoformanopinionastotherelationshipofonepersontoa
nother,theopinion,expressedbyconduct,astotheexistenceoftherelatio
nship,ofanypersonwho,asamemberofthefamilyorotherwise,hasspecia
lmeansofknowledgeonthesubject,isarelevantfact.

Theprovisotos.48prohibitstheuseofsuchopinionfrombeingsufficientto
proveamarriageinproceedingsundertheDivorceAct,orinprosecutionsu
ndersection153ofthePenalCodeActonadultery.Proofinthosetwocases
mustbeevidenceoffactnotopinion.However,otherrelationshipslikepare
ntage,affiliation,etcmaybeprovedbyopinionevidence.Reasonsforopini
onsmustbegiven,e.g.incustomsandrights.

Cases:

MugishavUganda
Facts:Therewere4countsofissuingthreatswithmurderanddemanding
menaces.Therewasevidenceofahandwritingexpertwhichsoughttolinkt
heaccusedwiththeoffence,butthisevidencewasnotscrutinisedbythetri
almagistrate.Theappellantwasconvicted.

Held:Anexpert’sopinionisopinionevidenceanditcanrarely,ifever,taket
heplaceofsubstantiveevidencethatopinionisonlyapieceofevidenceand
it’sforthecourttodecidetheissueonewayoranotheruponsuchassistance
astheexpertmightoffer.Althoughthegeneralrulerequiresanexperttosta
teinevidencethegroundsforhisopinion,theremaybecasesinwhichitisne
cessaryfortheexperttolayaproperfoundationforhisopinion.

JamesKatende&2othersvUgandaRailwaysCorporation

Held:Thevalueofmedicalevidenceincourtistogiveaclearpictureofthepl
aintiff’sconditionatthetimeoftheaccidentandatthetimeofthetrialsothat
thecourtcanassesstheappropriatedamagestobeawarded.Doctorsoug
httorefrainfromrelyingonthestoriesgivenbytheirpatientsorotherlitigan
ts.Theirsissupposedtobeexpertevidencewhichshouldbesupportedbys
cientificinvestigations.

FrancisOcokevUganda

Facts:Theappellantwasconvictedofmurderandpartoftheevidenceadd
ucedagainsthimwasapostmortemreportwhich,itwasalleged,couldbeu
sedtoshowmaliceaforethought.Itwasallegedthattheappellantstopped
hislorrybetweenatractorandatrailerandranoverthedeceased’sribs,cru
shinghimtodeath.

Held:Thepostmortemreportcontainsfindingsastothestateofthebody,t
heinjuriesfoundonitandanopinionastothecauseofdeath.Itisnotcapable
byitselfofprovingmaliceaforethought,theexistenceofwhich,isnotaques
tionofopinion,butthatoffact,tobedeterminedfromallavailableevidence.

MusisiDirisavSietco(U)Ltd

Held:Adoctor’sopinionmayberejectedforbeingonlysuperficialwhereitl
ackedscientificbacking.
CHARACTEREVIDENCE
Thisiscoveredbysections50-
54oftheEvidenceAct.Thetermcharacterisnotexpresslydefinedbythe
EvidenceActhowever,itisexplainedbytheprovisotosection54whichstat
esthatinsections50,51,52and54thewordcharacterincludesbothreputa
tionanddisposition;but,exceptasprovidedinsection52,evidencemaybe
givenofgeneralreputationandgeneraldisposition,andnotofparticularac
tsbywhichreputationordispositionwereshown.Dispositionundercharac
terevidencereferstothetendencyofapersontoactorbehaveinaparticula
rwaywhereasreputationreferstotheopinionofthemembersofthepublica
boutaparticularperson.

GeneralPrinciplesinCharacterEvidence

Thegeneralruleisthatevidenceofcharacterisnotadmissible.However,th
isrulehasmanyexceptionsandtheadmissibilityofcharacterevidencewill
dependonanumberthingse.g.

1. Thenatureofthecase
2. Natureofthepartiesforinstanceisitevidenceofthecharacterofthea
ccused,characterofplaintifforcharacterofdefendant?

Characterevidenceinreferencetoanaccusedperson(CriminalPr
oceedings).(Sections51,52and53)

Accordingtosection51oftheEvidenceActitisprovidedthatIcriminalproce
edingsthefactthatthepersonaccusedisofgoodcharacterisrelevant.This
isinlinewiththepresumptionofinnocencebutcharacterevidenceisgiven
pursuanttosection53wherebyitshouldbegiveninrelationtotheoffencec
harged.
YowanaSetumbavR(1957)EA35

Held:Characterevidenceisadmissibleagainsttheaccusediftheprosecut
ionshowshimasapersonofbadcharacter.Accordingtosection52itistheg
eneralrulethatincriminalproceedingsthebadcharacteroftheaccusedpe
rsonisirrelevant.However,youcanshowitaspartofresgestaeasevidence
ofpastsimilaroccurrencesundersection14oftheEvidenceAct.Section52
providescircumstanceswhenbadcharacterwouldbeadmissible.Thebad
characterreferredtohereisnormallyevidenceofreputationandbeforesu
chevidencecanbeadmitteditmustbeestablishedthatasubstantialpartof
thecommunityholdsthatviewprecaseofRvRowton(1965)10Cox25

Exceptionstothegeneralruleinadmissionofcharacterevidence

Section52(a)providesthatthefactthatanaccusedpersonhasabadchara
cterisirrelevantunlessevidencehasbeengivenoraquestionorquestions
askedbytheaccusedpersonorhisorheradvocateforthepurposeofshowin
gthatheorshehasgoodcharacter.Thismeansthattheaccusedwillhavepu
thischaracterintoissueandthereforetheissueofhisbadcharactercanbed
eterminedbyallowingtheprosecutiontoadduceevidencetoshowthathis
characterisbad.Itisonlytheaccusedtoputhischaracterintoissue.Hecann
otputtheprosecutionscharacterinissue.Iftheaccusedallegesevidenceo
fgoodcharacter,itisanissuetobetriedbycourt.Theaccusedcansafelyadd
ucetheevidenceofgoodcharacteratmitigationlevelsoastoreducesente
nceincasetheaccusedisconvicted.Iftheevidenceofgoodcharacterisintr
oducedearlytheprosecutioncancallevidencetorebutitaccordingtothec
asesofRvBulterwasser(1947)2ALLER415andMaxwellvDPP(193
5)A.C309

StirlandvDPP(1944)A.C315

Facts:Therulesdeterminingbadcharacterwerediscussedinthiscase.Th
eaccusedpersonwaschargedwithforgeryandhegaveevidenceofhisgoo
dcharacter.Hecalledawitnesstosaythathewasapersonwhohadneverbe
enconvictedbeforeandhewasverymoralistic.

Held:Thecourtallowedtheprosecutiontoadduceevidenceofhisbadchar
acterandonappealthefollowingguidelineswerelaiddownbythecourt:-

1. Anaccusedpersonmaybecross-
examinedastohisclaimsofgoodcharacterinanyevidencehehasgiveni
nchiefandthataresultofsuchcross-
examinationcanprovehisbadcharacterandthattheyareawayoftestin
 ghisvelocitythatsuchaccusedpastrecordcanbeputinevidence,butthi
sshouldbethewholeoftheaccused’spastlife,meresuspicionthatsome
onehasevercommittedacrimeisnotenoughanditisnotrelevanttoesta
blishhisbadcharacterandthisisnotenoughtodenyhimhisclaimofgood
character.
2. Duringthetrialtheevidenceofwitnesseswhocanestablishbadcharact
ermaybeadduced.

Anotherexceptionisgovernedbysection52(b)oftheEvidenceAct.Itispro
videdthatincriminalproceedingsthefactthatanaccusedpersonhasabad
characterisirrelevantunless,theproofthatheorshehascommittedorbee
nconvictedofanotheroffenceisadmissibletoshoethatheorsheisguiltyoft
heoffencewithwhichsheischarged.Thisisinrelationtooffencesofasimila
rnature.Therehastobearelationshipbetweenthepreviousandpresentcri
me.SeethecasesofRvRodley(1913)3K.B468regardingpreviousconvi
ctionsandMakindivR(1961)E.A327(previousbeatings)

The3rdexceptionisfoundinsection52(c)oftheEvidenceAct.Itisprovidedt
hatthefactthatanaccusedpersonhasabadcharacterisirrelevantunlesst
henatureorconductofhisorherdefenceissuchastoinvolveimputationso
nthecharacterofthecomplainantorthewitnessesfortheprosecution.Ins
uchacaseprosecutionwillbefreetoadduceevidencetoshowthattheaccu
sedisofbadcharacterandthereforelacksthecredittojudgeotherpeople’s
character.ThiswasdiscussedinthecaseofRoystonvR(1953)20EACA1
47whereitwasstatedthatiftheimputationsofbadcharacterareanintegra
lpartofthedefenceoftheaccusedwithoutwhichhecannotputhiscasefairl
yandsquarelythenhecannotbecross-
examinedonpreviouscriminalhistory.

KatwevUganda(1964)EA477

RexvTurner(1944)30Cr.App.R18

Facts:Theappellantwasconvictedofrape,hisdefencewasthatofconsent
,oncross-
examinationthecomplainantsaidthatshedidnotseetheappellanttakeou
thispersonbutsheadmittedhetookitoutandsheknewhewasseekingsexu
alintercoursewithherashewasstrugglingatherclothesandhedidnotrele
aseherinanyshapeorform.Theappellantgaveevidencehimselftothesa
meeffectbuthealsosaidthecomplainanttookhandofhispersonandsaidI
willdoit.Thetrialjudgeheldtheaboveevidencewasanimputationonthech
aracterofthecomplainantandtheprosecutionwasentitledtocross-
examinetheappellantonhispreviousconvictions.Theprosecutionthene
nlistedthefactthattheappellanthadbeenpreviouslyconvictedofassault
onafemalewithintenttorubbishherandhewassentencedtoamonths’imp
risonment.Onappeal;

Issues:Whetherevidenceofsuchpreviousconvictionswasadmissibleint
hiscaseandwhetherevidenceofcharacterwasproperlyadmitted?

Held:UndertheCriminalEvidenceActof1880ofUKapersonchargedandc
alledasawitnessundertheActshallnotbeaskedandifaskedshallnotbereq
uiredtoansweranyquestiontendingtoshowthathehascommittedorbee
nconvictedorbeenchargedwithanyotheroffenceotherthanthatwhichhe
iscurrentlychargedorisofbadcharacterunlessthenatureandtheconduct
ofthedefenceissuchastoinvolveimputationonthecharacteroftheprosec
utionorwitnessesfortheprosecutionofbadcharacter.Courtfurthersaidp
uttingforwardadefenceofconsentdoesnotamounttomakinganimputati
ononthecharacterofthecomplainantwheretheaccusedchargedwithrap
eputforwardthedefencethatthecomplainantconsentedtotheacthedoes
notmakeanimputationonhercharactersoastorenderhimselfliabletocro
ss-examinationonpreviousconvictionsorbadcharacter.

AbdullaKatwevR(1964)E.A477

Facts:Theappellantswerechargedwithconspiracytocommitrobbery,th
eevidencebeingthatactingoninformationreceived,anInspectorofPolice
withfiveotherofficersallinplainclotheswenttopatrolaroadandtheysawa
carsomeyardsinfrontofthemtryingtobrokethem,fivemenwithstonesde
scendedupontheInspectorscar.Whentheofficersemergedthefivemenw
ithdrewbuttheywerearrestedandstoneswerefoundintheircarandthenu
mberplatewassmearedwithsand.AtthetrialCounselfortheappellantsin
cross-
examinationsuggestedtotheInspectorthathehadfabricatedtheevidenc
e,andtheprosecutingofficerappliedforleavetocross-
examineoneoftheappellantsonhispreviousconvictions,themagistrater
uledthattheappellantshadputtheircharacterinissueandthereforethepr
osecutorwasentitledtocross-
examinetheappellantsonpreviousconvictions.The3 rdand5thappellants
admittedpreviousconvictionsandallthefiveappellantswereconvicted.O
nappealtheissuewaswhethertheevidenceofbadcharacteroftheappella
ntswasproperlyadmittedatthetrial?
Held:ItwassuggestedtotheInspectorthathehadfabricatedevidence,by
plantingstonesintotheappellantscarandhehadobscuredthenumberpla
tesofthecarCounselfortheappellantswentbeyondwhatwasnecessaryfo
rtheproperandfairpresentationofhisclients’casebeforethecourt.Accor
dinglythemagistratehadproperlyexercisedhisdiscretioninadmittingevi
denceofbadcharacterofthe2ndappellant.Itwouldhavebeenotherwiseift
heappellantshadsimplysaidtheevidencewasuntruesuchsuggestionwo
uldnotentitletheprosecutiontocross-
examineanyoftheaccusedastotheircharacter.

Theprincipleisthataclearlineshouldbedrawnbetweenwordsthataredeni
alofevidenceandwordswhichattacktheconductorcharacterofawitness.
Itisonethingfortheappellanttodenythatheperformedtheact,butitisanot
herthingtosaythatthewholethingwasadeliberateandelaborateconcocti
ononpartoftheprosecutionwhichseemstobeanattackonthecharacterof
awitness.Courtfinallysaidinmakingimputationsonthecharacterofthepr
osecutionwitnessesthedefencehadgonesofarastobringtheimputations
outsidethescopeofprotectionundertheruleinRoyston’scase.

RvRodley(1913)3K.B468

Facts:Thiscasediscussessection52(b)oftheEvidenceActregardingpre
viousconvictions.Theappellantwasindictedforhavingbrokenintoadwell
inghouseinthenightwithintenttolavishawoman.Prosecution’sevidence
wastotheeffectthattheappellantbrokeintothehouseandwentdownstair
swhereheseizedher,hepulleddownherclothesanduponthewoman’sfat
hercomingdownstairstheappellantwentaway.Thedefenceatthetrialwa
sthatevidenceoftheprosecutionwasnottruesincetheappellantwenttoth
ehouseforpurposesofcourtingthecomplainantwithherconsentandhedi
dnotintendorattempttoravishher.Prosecutiontenderedevidencethatth
eappellantatabout2.00amonthesamemorningwenttothehouseofanot
herwomanaboutthreehousesfromthecomplainant’shousegainedacce
sstoherbedroomandhadaconnectionwithher.Itwascontendedthatthise
videncewasadmissibletoshowthestateoftheappellantsmindandbodyat
thetimewhenhebrokeintothecomplainant’shomeandcoupledwiththee
videnceofwhathappenedwhenhewasinthehousewasadmissibletoshow
theintentoftheappellant.Thisevidencewasadmittedandtheappellantw
asconvictedonitandheappealed.

Held:Thisevidencewasnotrelevanttoanyoftheissuesinthecaseandther
eforenotadmissibleandcitingthecaseofRvFisher(1910)1K.B149cou
rtsaidtheprincipleisthatprosecutorsarenotallowedtoprovethattheaccu
sedhascommittedtheoffencewithwhichheischargedbygivingevidencet
hatheisapersonofbadcharacterwhoisinthehabitofcommittingcrimes,fo
rthatisequivalenttoaskingthecourttosaythatbecauseanaccusedhasco
mmittedotheroffenceshemustthereforebeguiltyoftheparticularoffenc
eforwhichheisbeingtried,butiftheevidenceofotheroffences,doesgotop
rovethathedidcommittheoffencecharged,itisadmissiblebecauseitisrel
evantinissueanditisadmissiblebecauseitprovesthattheaccusedcommi
ttedanotheroffence.Courtfinallysaidthatthegoverningrulemustalways
bethatanyevidencetobeadmissiblemustberelevanttotheissue.

AliBinHassanAliasMgwengwevR(1960)E.A121

Facts:Thesameissueofpreviousconvictionswasconsidered.Theappell
antwasconvictedbyamagistrateofaidingaprisonertoescapeandobstruc
tingapoliceofficerinthedueexecutionofhisduty.Athistrialtheappellantc
onductedhisowndefence,andincross-
examinationofapoliceconstablehegotfromhimthefollowinganswer”Ye
sIknowthatyouhaverecentlycomeoutofjailwhereyouweresentforbeing
foundinpossessionofabigquantityofwine“.Latertheappellantwascross-
examinedastohisbadcharacterandpreviousconvictions.Onappeal;

Issue:Whetherevidenceofbadcharacterandpreviousconvictionswasw
ronglyadmitted?

Held:Themagistrateshouldnothavecommittedtheappellanttocross-
examinethepoliceconstableinthewayhedidforitwasobviousthattheapp
ellantwasbringinghisbadcharacterinissueandatthatstagehisbadchara
cterwasinadmissibleinevidence.TheMagistrateshouldhavestoppedhi
mandwarnedhimofthedangerherunincontinuingwiththatlineofquestio
ning.

The4thexceptionisfoundinsection52(d)oftheEvidenceAct.Underth
atprovisionitisprovidedthatincriminalproceedingsthefactthatanaccus
edpersonhasbadcharacterisirrelevantunlessheorshehasgivenevidenc
eagainstanyotherpersonchargedwiththesameoffenceasthatwhichheo
rsheischarged.Thetermgivingevidenceagainstcoaccusedhasbeenasu
bjectofdebateinanumberofcasesaswellasthetermgivingevidencewhic
hunderminesthedefenceofcoaccused.Inallcasesthecourtshavesaidtha
tthereisanobjectivetestthatmaybeemployedinsuchcasesandthatiswh
atistheeffectthatevidenceandiftheanswerofsuchevidenceistoleadtoth
econvictionofthecoaccusedthenanaccusedwouldbesaidtohavegivene
videnceagainstcoaccused.Thiswasconsideredinthecaseof:

MurdockvTaylor(1965)1ALLER406

Facts:TheappellantMurdockwaschargedjointlywithoneLinchwiththeo
ffenceofreceivingcamerasknowingthemtohavebeenstolen.Incrossexa
minationtheappellantsaidthathehadnothingtodowithstolencamerasa
ndthattheywereentirelylinch’sresponsibility.Furtheranswersoftheapp
ellantpointedtotheconclusionthatLinchalonewasincontrolandpossessi
onoftheboxcontainingthestolencameras.Linch’scounselwasallowedto
cross-
examinetheappellantwhoadmittedanumberofconvictionsfortheft.Ona
ppeal;

Issues:WhethertheappellantgaveevidenceagainstLinchandwhethert
hereforecross-
examinationastohispreviousconvictionswasrightlyallowed?

Held:Theevidencegivenbytheappellantincrossexaminationwasevide
nceagainstLinchbecauseitsupportedtheprosecution’scaseagainstLinc
hinamaterialparticularandthereforequestionsastothepreviousconvicti
onswereproperlyallowedbecausetheywererelevantanddirectedtothea
ppellantscredibility.Inthiscasecourtlaiddownthefollowingprinciples

1. Theevidenceagainstcoaccusedmeansevidencewhichsupportthe
prosecution’scaseagainstcoaccusedinamaterialrespect,orwhich
underminesthedefenceofcoaccused,italsomeanspositiveeviden
cewhichwouldrationallyhavetobeincludedinanysummaryofevide
nceinwhichthecasewhichifacceptedwouldwarrantconvictionofco
accused.
2. Bothmustbechargedwiththesameoffence.
3. Thematerialconsiderationsindeterminingwhethersuchevidenceh
asbeengivenistheeffectoftheevidenceinthemindsofthecourtandt
hisisanobjectivetest.Evidenceagainstcoaccusedisnotlimitedtoev
idencegivenwithhostileintent,onceanaccusedhasgivenevidence
againsthiscoaccusedatrialjudgehasnodiscretionwhetherornotto
allowtheformertobecross-
examinedbythecoaccusedastohispreviousconvictionsalthought
hetrialjudgemustruleastotherelevancyoftheproposedcross-
examination.Thismeansthatitshouldgotothecredibilityoftheaccu
 sed,whohasgivenevidenceagainstcoaccused.Thesamematterwa
sconsideredinthecaseof:

RvBruce(1975)1W.LR1252(meaningof‘evidenceagainst’)

Facts:Inthiscase8youthssurroundedapassengeronatrainandwhenthe
yrealizedthathewasfrightenedtheytookmoneyfromhim.Theywereallch
argedwithrobbery,oneaccusedcalledMcGuinnesssaidthattherewasapl
antorobbuthesaidthathehadplayednopartinit.HisCounselwasallowedt
ocross-
examineanotheraccusedBruceabouthispreviousconvictionsonthebasi
sthatBrucehadgivenevidenceagainstMcGuinnessbydenyingthatthere
wasaplantocommitrobbery.

Issue:WhetherevidenceofBruce’spreviousconvictionwasadmissible.
WhetherhehadgivenevidenceagainstMcGuinness?

Held:‘Evidenceagainst’meansevidencewhichsupportstheprosecution
’scaseinamaterialrespect,orwhichunderminesthedefenceofcoaccused
.Thatevidencecannotbesaidtobegivenagainstcoaccusedifitseffectifbel
ievedistoresultnotinhisconvictionbuthisacquittalofthatoffence.Courtw
entaheadtosaythatBruce’sevidenceunderminedthedefenceofMcGuin
ness.ThepreviousconvictionsofBrucewerewronglyadmitted.Theappea
lwasdismissedonthegroundthatifsuchevidenceleadstoanacquittalthe
nitisnotevinceagainstcoaccused.

RvDavis(1975)1W.LR345

Facts:Thedefendantandcoaccusedwerechargedjointlywiththeftofanu
mberofitemsincludingacross.Thecoaccusedgaveevidenceaccusingthe
defendantofstealingthatcross,thedefendantdeniedthetheftanduponcr
oss-
examinationbycoaccusedhesaidthatashehadnotstolenthecrossanditw
asmissingthecoaccusedmusthavestolenitbutthathewasnotsayingthat
hedid.Thedefendantwascross-
examineduponhispreviousconvictionsonthegroundthathehadgivenevi
denceagainstcoaccused,hewasconvictedandheappealedandonappeal
;

Issue:Whetherthedefendant’sdenialswereevidenceagainstcoaccuse
d?
Held:Sincethecircumstancesofthetheftweresuchthateitherthedefend
antorcoaccusedorbothhadstolenthecrossthedefendant’sdenialofthec
oaccused’saccusationwenttotherootofthecaseandmusthaveundermin
edthecoaccused’sdefence.Thedefendant’sdenialswereevidenceagain
stcoaccusedandthatevidenceofpreviousconvictionswasrightlyadmitte
d.

CharacterEvidenceinCivilCases(sections50and54oftheEviden
ceAct)

Thiscaneitherbethecharacteroftheplaintiff,defendantorthecharactero
fthewitness.Section50oftheEvidenceActprovidesthatIncivilcasesthefa
ctthatthecharacterofanypersonconcernedissuchastorenderprobableo
rimprobableanyconductimputedtohimorherisirrelevant,exceptinsofar
asthatcharacterappearsfromthefactsotherwiserelevant.Thisissubjecti
ve.Thedefendantmayadducetheplaintiff’sevidenceofbadcharacterino
rdertomitigatedamages.

Evidenceofbadcharactermaybeadducedtoaswelltoestablishthataparti
cularinstanceofbadbehaviorwasnotanaccidentbutpartofaserieswhich
wererelated.Evidenceofbadcharacterisalsoimportantundersection54o
ftheEvidenceActwhichprovidesthatincivilcasesthefactthatthecharact
erofanypersonissuchastoaffecttheamountofdamageswhichheorsheou
ghttoreceiveisarelevantfact.Thisquestionwasraisedinthecaseof:

GoodryvOldham’sPress(1967)1Q.B333

Facts:InAugust1963,thegreattrainrobberyoccurred,intheUnitedKingd
omwhere2.5millionpoundswasstolenfromthemailtrain.InMarch1964,t
heplaintiffwasconvictedofbeingarmedwithanoffensiveweaponandthat
ofrobberyof120mailbags,hewassentencedto30yearsimprisonment,inJ
uly1964,thedefendant’snewspaperpublishedastorywhichwasentitled
Asuburbanhousemaidrevealshowshewascaughtupinagreatma
ilbagplotandthearticlecontainedmanyreferencestotheplaintiffandde
scribedtheleadingroleplayedbyher.InSeptember1964theplaintiffbrou
ghtanactionagainstthedefendantsclaimingdamagesforlibelinthearticl
e.Thedefendantatfirstpleadedfulljustificationbuttheyamendedtheirde
fencetopleadpartialjustificationandalsopleadedmitigationofdamages,
sayingthatinJuly1964,whentheypublishedthearticle,theplaintiffalread
yhadabadreputationasathiefandarobberandinsupportoftheallegation,
theygaveevidenceofherpreviousconvictionswhichamountedtosevenin
cludingthedismissalofherappeal,againsttheconvictionforMarch1964.
Issue:Whetherevidenceofbadreputationwasadmissible?

Held:Convictionswithinarelevantperiodoftheplaintiff’slifewerecogent
evidencethattheplaintiffhadabadreputationandwereadmissibleinevid
enceinmitigationofdamagesandthereforethedefendantswererightfull
yallowedtogiveevidenceofMarch1964conviction.

Thesameissuewasraisedinthecaseof:

WaltersvSundayPictorialNewspaper(1961)2ALLER758

Facts:ThedefendantsintheirSundaytimesreferredtotheplaintiff(A)asa
notoriousdodgeroperatoroflandslumproperties,BasawiledodgerandCt
hemanwhoseestateagencywasdescribedbyLordGodardthentheLordC
hiefJustice,asafraudulentbusinessmanfromthebeginningtotheend.Int
heirdefenceforlibelthedefendantsadmittedthatthewordsweredefamat
orybuttheypleadedthefollowingdefenses

1. Justification
2. FaircommentonamatterofPublicInterest
3. ThatthewordsagainstCwereafairandaccuratereportofJudicial
Proceedings.
4. Inmitigationofdamagesthatasaresultofcertainjudicialproceed
ingstheplaintiffhadalreadybeenbroughtintoscandalodiumand
contemptandcitedthreeJudicialProceedingsoneofthemcrimin
alandtwocivilactionsinvolvingfraud.

Issue:Whetherthosejudgmentsreferredtowereadmissibletoestablish
badreputation?

Held:Thepleainmitigationofdamagesthattheplaintiffhadalreadybeen
broughtintothepublicodiumbythejudgmentsintheproceedingsreferred
todidnotgobeyondwhatwaspermissibleasevidenceofbadreputationina
sectionofliferelevanttotheallegedlibel.RelyingonScottvSampson(18
82)8.Q.B.D491,Courtsaidthatinmitigationofdamagesonlygeneralevi
denceofreputationmaybeadducedanditisnotpermissibletoadduceevid
enceofspecificfactsbuthowever,itispermissibletopleadsuchmattersas
directingattentiontotherelevantsectoroftheplaintiff’slife.

ScottvSampson
Facts:ThiswasanactionbroughtforpublicationinapapercalledRefereea
libelimputingtotheplaintiffthatbythreateningtopublishinajournalcalled
thetheaterdefamatorystatementswithreferencetoadeceasedactressh
ehadextortedasumofmoneyfromoneGreen.Thedefendantsadducedin
mitigationofdamagesevidencethattheplaintiffhadalreadyabadreputat
ionbasedontheevidenceofrumoursbeforethepublicationofthelibelthatt
heplaintiffhadbeenguiltyofmisconductimputedonhiminadditiontoevid
enceofpreviousactsoftheplaintiffwhichweresaidtohavebeenofadiscre
ditablecharacterandcalledwitnessestoshowthatbeforepublicationthos
erumourshadbeentold.

Issue:Whetherevidenceofrumoursthattheplaintiffhaddonewhatwasc
hargedagainsthimshouldhavebeenadmitted?

Held:Evidenceofrumoursbeforepublicationofthelibelthattheplaintiffh
adcommittedoffenceschargedandevidenceofpublicationfactsandcircu
mstancestendingtoshowthemisconductoftheplaintiffcouldnotbeadmit
tedinreductionofdamages.Thefollowingprincipleswerelaiddown:-

1. Thelawrecognizesineverymanarighttohavetheestimationinwhichhe
standsintheopinionofothersaffectedbythefalsestatementstohisdiscr
editifsuchfalsestatementsaremadewithoutlawfulexcuse,anddamag
esresultsuchdamagedshouldbecalculatedentirelyontheestimationi
nwhichhewaspreviouslyheld.Ifhecomplainsofanyinjurytohisreputati
onandheseekstorecoverdamages,beforesuchdamagescanbeaward
edthecourtshouldknowifinfactheisamanofnoreputation,todenythis
wouldbetodecidethatamanoftheworstcharacterisentitledtothesame
measureofdamageswithoneofgoodreputation.
2. Onthequestionofrumours,courtsaidthattoadmitevidenceofrumours
andsuspicionistogiveanyonewhoknowsnothingabouttheplaintifforw
homayhaveagrudgeagainsthimquestionopportunityofspreadingwh
athemayhavepickedfromthemostdisreputablesourceandwhatnoma
nofsensewhoknowstheplaintiff’scharacterwouldbelieve.Unlikeevide
nceofgeneralreputation,itisparticularlydifficultfortheplaintifftorebut
suchevidenceforhiswitnessescanonlysaythattheyhavenotheardsuc
hrumours.

Characterofthedefendant

Incivilproceedingsthisisnotordinarilyanissuealthoughitmaybecomeso
underthecircumstancesofsection54oftheEvidenceAct.Howeveritisthe
generalrulethatthecharacterofthedefendantmaynotdependonwhethe
rthedefendanthasbeenconvictedofacriminaloffence.Whathastobeest
ablishedishisbehavior,inrespectofcivilmattersatissue.Thisisunlikeincri
minalmatterswherepastconvictionisrelevant.Inpracticecourtshavebe
enreluctanttoacceptcharacterofthedefendantbasedonpastconviction.
Thismatterwasdiscussedatlengthinthecaseof:

HollingtonvHewthorn(1943)K.B58

Facts:Inanactionarisingoutofacollisionbetweentwomotorcarsonthehi
ghwaytheplaintiffallegednegligenceonthepartofthedefendantdriver,h
esoughttogiveevidenceofaconvictionofthedefendantofcarelessdriving
arisingoutofthesamefactsinacriminalmatter.

Issue:Whethertheevidenceoftheconvictionwasadmissible?
Courtsaidthatbothonprincipleandauthorityevidenceofconvictionwasin
admissibleasbeingresintariousacta(evidenceofpreviousconvictioninn
otadmissibleincivilactionforbeingcontrarytojustice)thattheissuesbefo
recourtinthecriminalactionaredifferentfromthoseinacivilactionanditw
ouldthereforebeimpropertouseconvictioninacriminalcasetoestablishli
abilityincivilproceedings.Thisparticularcasehasbeenstronglycriticized
notfortheprincipleslaiddownbutaboutthedecisioninaparticularcase.Iti
sasonprinciplethatyoucannotuseacriminalconvictiontoestablishliabilit
yincivilproceedings.Thiswasatrafficoffenceandthedecisionhasbeenhig
hlycriticized.

CharacterofWitnesses

Itappliestobothcriminalandcivilcases.Generallythecharacterofthewitn
essesisnotmaterialinbothcriminalandcivilcases.However,thenatureoft
headversarialsystemwhichweoperateinvolvescompetitionandforthisr
easonbothsidesstrivetodiscreditthecredibilityofeachother’switnesses.
Witnessesarethereforeusuallysubjectedtoserioussearchingandscrutin
ytoestablishwhethertheyaretellingthetruthornot.Apartytolitigationisn
ormallyawitnessandassuchistreatedlikeanyotherwitness.Undersectio
n153,oftheEvidenceActpermitsapersonwhocallsawitnesstoputanyque
stiontohimorherwhichmightbeputincross-
examinationbytheadversepartyandundersection154oftheEvidenceAc
tthecredibilityofawitnessmaybeimpeachedbycallingwitnessestotestif
ythatheisuntrustworthyofcredit.Undersection137oftheEvidenceActwi
tnessestotheoppositesidemaybediscreditedbybringingintheirbadchar
acterandthisusuallyhappensduringcross-
examinationasprovidedundersection137(2)oftheEvidenceAct,Whereit
isprovidedthattheexaminationandcross-
examinationmustrelatetotherelevantfacts,butthecross-
examinationneednotbeconfinedtothefactstowhichthewitnesstestified
onhisorherexaminationinchief.Awitnessmaybecross-
examinedastohisveracityorcredibilityanditisduringthistimethateviden
ceofbadcharacterisusuallybroughtup.Undersection137(3)apartywhoc
allsawitnessisallowedtoreexaminehiswitnessforthepurposeofclarifyin
gevidencehemayhavegivenduringcross-
examinationortorepairanydamagewhichmayhavebeendonetohiscredi
t.Evidencecommendinggoodcharacteroftheparty’sownwitnessesisrar
elyledeventhoughasgoingtothecredibilityofthewitness.Althoughingen
eralevidencecanbecalledtoimpairthecredibilityofawitnessitisnotledinc
hieftoboosterupthatcredibility.Whereevidenceofcharacterofanoppon
ent’switnessisleditissubjecttoconditions.Themattermustberelevantatl
easttothewitness’scredibilityandsecondlythejudgehasthedutytopreve
ntquestioningofanundulyoffensive,vexatiousorembarrassingcharacte
randalsoshouldpreventoppressivecross-
examination.Thisisprovidedforundersections150and151oftheEvidenc
eAct.Questionsaskedmustberelevantnotindescentorscandalousandsh
ouldnotbeintendedtoinsultorannoythewitness.Undersection148,court
scanstopirrelevantquestions.

HobbsvTinoign&Co.Ltd(1929)K.B1

Held:Questionsareproperonlywhentheanswerswouldseriouslyimpairt
hecredibilityofthewitnessandthattheyareimproperiftheyrelatetomatte
rssoremoteintimeorofsuchcharacterthatiftrue,theycouldnotseriouslyi
mpairthecredibilityofawitness.