QUESTION: As a principle of criminal liability, the prosecution has the onus of proving the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The burden does not shift to the accused person and the accused is only convicted on the strength of the prosecution case and not because of weaknesses in his defense.
Therefore in the offense of manslaughter and murder, the most crucial and only ingredient that must be probed by the prosecution is the participation of the accused. The other ingredients are not relevant"
With relevant authorities, discuss the validity of the above statement.
MURDER.
S.188 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120 provides that Murder is the unlawful killing by acts or omission of a person with malice aforethought.
Ingredients to be proved by the prosecution to secure a conviction for murder include;
Death of the Victim, Causation of the death by unlawful acts, Malice aforethought, and participation of the accused in the death of the victim
MANSLAUGHTER.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without malice aforethought. The prosecution has to prove the following ingredients in manslaughter;
Death of the victim, unlawful acts or omissions, participation of the accused in the death of the victim.
In Manslaughter the accused does not deny killing the victim but justifies their acts by either diminished responsibility, provocation, or a suicide pact.
Here the offense is then reduced from that of murder to a lesser offense of manslaughter as provided for under S.187 of the Penal Code Act Cap120
Murder and Manslaughter are homicides grouped under Fatal Offences against persons.
According to Woolmington v DPP [1935] the burden of proof in criminal cases lies to the prosecution (and not the accused to prove innocence) furthermore according to Ssekitoleko V Uganda (1967), the standard at which prosecution must prove this is beyond a reasonable doubt.
In both homicides the prosecution must prove the following ingredients to secure a conviction;
- Death of a person
- Death caused by unlawful acts or omission
- Participation of the accused in the acts or omissions causing death
For Murder, an extra ingredient of Malice Aforethought must be proved by the prosecution in murder cases.
In the offense of murder and manslaughter, the most crucial and only ingredient that must be proved by the prosecution must be the participation of the accused.
Participation of the accused in the acts or omissions causing the death of the victim.
Participation requires for there to be a chain
In both homicides in order for the defendant to be convicted, the defendant must have caused the death of another by their unlawful acts or omissions.
The prosecution should establish a chain of events that make the defendant an active participant in the causation of the death.
According to Uganda V Tumwebaze & 2 ors [2008], if the accused does not expressly accept the participation in the killing, death of the victim can be gathered from careful study of evidence, statements in dying declarations by the deceased (written or verbal), Evidence of witnesses,
In Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1994, a man stabbed a pregnant woman in the face and the belly. The woman, later on, gave birth to a premature baby which later died.
The accused was held liable for causing the death of the baby although the fetus was not recognized as a human being.
But for his acts, led to the death of the baby.
Participation is crucial in murder and manslaughter offenses since it creates a link between the accused and the alleged acts without which the charges against the defendant would be meaningless.
However, Although Participation of the accused in the acts or omissions causing death is crucial, other ingredients such as the Death of the person, by unlawful acts or omission must be proved for murder.
Read More: General Rules of criminal liability
Death of the person.
Death is the extinction of life. In a situation where vital life-supporting activities such as breathing, blood circulation cease to take place a person is deemed dead.
Section 198 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120 provides that for a person to be convicted for unlawfully causing the death of another the death must occur between a year and a day from the time the act or omission that caused the death occurred.
According to Uganda V Adrama & Anor [2017], proof of death may be gathered from a Post mortem by medical officers or Evidence from an eye witness who states that they knew the deceased and attended the burial.
If death does not occur within a year and a day then the accused will not be liable for the homicides of manslaughter or murder.
Read more: Classifications of Crimes
Death caused by unlawful acts or omissions.
Unlawful acts or omissions are those recognized by law as being unlawful.
It was held in Gusambizi S/o Wesonga V R (1948) that all homicides are unlawful unless excused by law
Instances such as accident, self-defense or defense of property, provocation, execution of the lawful sentence that may cause the death of a victim are recognized as Lawful homicides and the accused will not be held liable.
If the Prosecution fails to prove that the acts or omissions causing the death were unlawful then the accused will not be liable for the offense of manslaughter or murder.
Apart from the discussed ingredients, for the offense of Murder, an extra ingredient of Malice aforethought should be proved by the prosecution to find the defendant guilty of murder discussed as follows;
Also Read: Self Defense
Malice aforethought.
Malice aforethought is the intention to cause the death of a person.
According to S.191 of the Penal Code Act (120), it provides that Malice aforethought is
- The Intention to cause the death of a person
- The knowledge that the act or omission causing death will cause the death of that person (whether such a person is killed or not)
In Nanyonjo Harriet and Another versus Uganda Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2002 court held that proof of malice aforethought depends on the facts surrounding the case. Hence malice aforethought can be deduced from
- The Type of Weapon used
- The part of the body targeted.
- The mode of killing
If the court does not find proof of malice aforethought the victim will not be convicted of murder but a lesser conviction of manslaughter will be given.
This was illustrated in the case of R V Mawa John [2017]
The judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of malice aforethought and hence the convict’s charge was reduced from murder to a lesser offense of Manslaughter.
In a nutshell, to a larger extent, I disagree with the statement that participation is the most crucial and the only ingredient that has to be proved by the prosecution in murder and manslaughter offenses.
All ingredients discussed above are crucial in determining a conviction in homicides of Manslaughter and Murder thus all of them are equally crucial.
If one or more of the ingredients is not satisfied by the prosecution while proving their case it may entitle the convict to a different conviction such as from murder to manslaughter or even be acquitted if the court is satisfied that one or more of the ingredients is not satisfied.
Download as Document.
Compiled by Kityo Martin.