|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2009 |
|
|
A conviction based on a single nighttime visual identification was unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – single eyewitness – need for evidence to be watertight to exclude mistaken identity. * Robbery with violence – unsafe conviction where identification is unreliable and uncorroborated. * Burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
27 December 2009 |
| November 2009 |
|
|
Identification evidence at night involving intoxication was insufficient to prove the appellant committed rape beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Rape – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night and involving an intoxicated complainant – single/uncertain eyewitness – need for "water tight" identification; burden of proof remains on the prosecution.
|
30 November 2009 |
|
Identification defects in single-witness testimony can render a conviction unsafe; unequivocal guilty pleas bar appeals against conviction.
* Criminal law – sexual offences – identification by single eyewitness – cautionary approach where face covered and accounts inconsistent. * Criminal procedure – plea of guilty – unequivocal plea and acceptance of facts bars appeal against conviction (section 360(1)); criteria for interfering with plea.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Conviction based solely on weak night-time visual identification was unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – Night-time identification and moonlight – Single witness evidence – Requirement that identification be ‘‘absolutely water tight’’ before convicting. * Evidence – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Testing single-witness identification with greatest care. * Robbery with violence – unsafe identification renders conviction unsustainable.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Unexplained arrest delay and inadmissible co-accused confession created reasonable doubt, so conviction was quashed.
Criminal law – robbery – identification evidence – reliability of visual ID at scene; admissibility of co-accused’s cautioned statement – voluntariness must be tested; unexplained delay in arrest and arrest for unrelated matter raises reasonable doubt; conviction cannot be founded on alleged weakness of defence.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Reported
Conviction quashed where lone eyewitness identification at night was unsafe and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night by a single witness – Necessity for evidence to be ‘water tight’ and to exclude possibility of mistaken identity; conviction unsafe where circumstances unfavour identification.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Sole nighttime visual identification was unreliable; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
* Criminal law — Identification evidence — Visual identification must be watertight; single-witness identification at night requires greatest care — Possibility of mistaken identity renders conviction unsafe.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Victim’s night identification unreliable, but recent possession and ballistic evidence upheld conviction and 30-year sentence.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence at night – reliability and dangers of spontaneous identification. * Criminal law – Recent possession – recovery of stolen property as linking accused to robbery. * Evidence – contradictions in prosecution witnesses – gist/essential consistency test. * Evidence – ballistic report admitted at trial but absent from appeal record – absence not fatal where witness testified and trial court admitted it. * Criminal procedure – use of separate unlawful-possession plea/conviction to corroborate connection to weapon.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Robbery conviction quashed where identification and co-accused statement were unreliable and trial magistrate misdirected.
* Criminal law – Robbery – identification evidence – reliability affected by unexplained delay in arrest and circumstance of arrest.
* Criminal procedure – admissibility of cautioned statement – voluntariness must be tested; improperly admitted statement to be disregarded.
* Criminal law – benefit of reasonable doubt – accused entitled to acquittal/release where prosecution fails to dispel doubt.
* Trial error – misdirection by convicting because defence appeared weak rather than on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed due to improbable eyewitness conduct and adverse inference from non-called witnesses.
* Criminal law – sexual offences – safety of conviction where eyewitness testimony is internally inconsistent and husband witness' conduct is improbable; * Criminal procedure – medical report (PF3) and s.240(3) C.P.A. – non-compliance does not automatically require expungement if report is not prejudicial to accused; * Evidence – failure to call available witnesses attracts adverse inference; conviction unsafe.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Court upheld rape conviction on child’s uncorroborated testimony despite PF.3 anomaly, curing sentencing omission by equity.
* Criminal law – Rape – Evidence of child of tender years – Competence under s.127 Evidence Act and corroboration not mandatory; * Medical report (PF.3) tainted by non‑compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – exclusion does not automatically defeat prosecution if other evidence suffices; * Procedural irregularity – sentencing without recording conviction – equity may treat conviction as done to prevent injustice; * Second appeal – appellate restraint on findings of fact.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Conviction quashed where nighttime visual identification lacked safeguards and raised reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Gang rape established by complainant evidence; Identification – Visual identification at night without indication of light or descriptive particulars unsafe; Prosecution must prove identity beyond reasonable doubt; Conviction quashed where identification evidence is unreliable (Waziri Amani principles).
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Single-witness identification under unfavourable conditions was unsafe, so the appellant's rape conviction was quashed and sentence set aside.
* Criminal law – rape – sufficiency of identification evidence – cautionary approach to single eyewitness identification made under unfavourable conditions.
* Evidence – evaluation of witness credibility – duty of trial and appellate courts to analyse contradictions and shortcomings.
* Burden of proof – prosecution must prove identity beyond reasonable doubt; conviction cannot rest on unsafe identification.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
The applicant's unequivocal guilty plea supported by admitted facts precludes challenge to conviction; only sentence is appealable.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – When a plea is unequivocal and supported by admitted facts, conviction on that plea is proper. * Criminal procedure – Appealability – Section 360(1) C.P.A.: plea of guilty bars appeal against conviction, only sentence challenge permitted. * Plea review – Laurent Mpinga criteria for interfering with pleas: imperfection, mistake/misapprehension, no offence disclosed, or admitted facts not constituting offence. * Sexual offences – Attempted rape – admitted facts establishing attempt.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
PF3 admitted in breach of s.240 was expunged; remaining hearsay and circumstantial evidence insufficient to sustain rape conviction.
Criminal law – rape of a minor; evidence – PF3 (medical report) inadmissible where accused not informed of s.240 right to call doctor; child’s out‑of‑court statements constitute hearsay if child not produced; circumstantial evidence insufficient to support conviction.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Admission of a medical report without complying with section 240 and reliance on hearsay rendered the rape conviction unsafe.
* Criminal procedure – Admission of medical report (PF3) – Section 240 Criminal Procedure Act – accused must be informed of right to require doctor to be called; non-compliance renders PF3 inadmissible and subject to expungement.
* Evidence – Child complainant – out-of-court statements/hearsay – child not called to testify; such statements cannot identify accused.
* Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – insufficiency to convict where alternative suspects had access to complainant and no direct identification.
|
27 November 2009 |
|
Reported
The appellant’s rape conviction upheld on credible eyewitness identification despite PF3 procedural irregularity.
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof of rape and sufficiency of penetration; * Identification – Daytime identification of a known neighbour and reliability of eyewitnesses; * Evidence – Admissibility/weight of PF3 where doctor not called under s.240(3) CPA; * Appeal – Appellate restraint in disturbing concurrent findings of fact.
|
20 November 2009 |
|
Reported
A notice of appeal delivered to prison authorities within time is deemed received by the Registry under Rule 68.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – Rule 44; Prisoners' appeals – Rule 68 – notice of appeal delivered to prison authorities deemed received by Registry; time taken by prison authorities excluded from limitation; main registry vs sub-registry filing.
|
20 November 2009 |
|
The applicant's rape conviction was quashed due to evidential inconsistencies and PF3 admitted without the required s.240(3) procedure.
Criminal law – rape; evidential inconsistencies and contradictory witness accounts; admissibility of PF3 and non-compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; s.127(7) Evidence Act – warning and need for corroboration; benefit of doubt; duty of Judges-in-Charge to ensure Magistrates' compliance with s.240(3).
|
20 November 2009 |
|
A defective or omitted voir dire for child witnesses, failing section 127(2) requirements, is a fatal irregularity rendering conviction unsafe.
* Evidence — Children as witnesses — Voir dire — Section 127(2) Evidence Act — requirement to establish and record that child understands oath, has sufficient intelligence, and understands duty to tell truth; failure is fatal. * Criminal law — Sexual offences — Uncorroborated child evidence — need for corroboration where voir dire omitted or defective; interplay with section 127(7) permitting convictions on uncorroborated evidence in certain circumstances. * Procedural irregularity — defective voir dire — remedy and retrial considerations.
|
20 November 2009 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where PF3 was improperly admitted and prosecution evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – Rape – Sufficiency of prosecution evidence and need for corroboration when trial court fails to warn itself under s.127(7) Evidence Act. * Criminal procedure – PF3 (medical report) – s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – right to summon doctor – failure to comply results in expungement. * Evidence – contradictions and investigative defects undermining prosecution case – benefit of doubt and appellate intervention. * Relief – conviction quashed, sentence set aside, immediate release ordered.
|
20 November 2009 |
|
Reported
Conviction based on improperly received unsworn child testimony quashed; retrial refused in child's best interests.
* Evidence Act s.127(2) — child witness — voire dire — requirement to establish understanding of oath, duty to tell truth and sufficient intelligence
* Evidence Act s.127(7) — sexual offences — uncorroborated child evidence permissible only if court records assessment of credibility and reasons
* Child rights — best interests of the child (CRC art.3) — factor against ordering retrial
* Procedural irregularity — failure to conduct proper voire dire renders unsworn child evidence unsafe
|
20 November 2009 |
|
Rape conviction upheld on credible daylight eyewitness identification despite irregular PF3 admission.
Criminal law – Rape – Eyewitness identification in daylight of a known neighbour – Sufficiency of evidence; Evidence – PF3 medical report – requirements of section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act and effect of non-production of the doctor – Appellate review of factual findings on second appeal.
|
20 November 2009 |
|
Conviction quashed because eyewitness identification was unreliable and not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Eyewitness credibility and conflicting accounts – Improbability of known villagers remaining unmasked during masked armed robbery – Benefit of doubt – Conviction quashed where identification unsafe.
|
20 November 2009 |
|
Conviction unsafe where child's evidence lacked proper voire dire and medical report was admitted without statutory safeguards.
* Evidence — Child of tender years — requirement of voire dire to determine competence and understanding of oath; unsworn evidence requires corroboration.
* Criminal procedure — PF.3 (medical report) — mandatory right under section 240(3) to require production of the person who made the report; admission without compliance renders report unreliable for linking accused.
* Corroboration — parental testimony repeating what child said does not independently corroborate the child's account.
* Burden of proof — conviction cannot rest on weakness of defence or accused's silence; prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
20 November 2009 |
|
Conviction unsafe where child’s evidence lacked voir dire corroboration and medical report was admitted without statutory safeguards.
* Evidence — Child witness — Failure to conduct proper voir dire under s.127(2) renders testimony unsworn and requires corroboration. * Criminal procedure — PF.3/medical report — Maker must be called or accused informed of right to require attendance under s.240(3); otherwise report’s evidential value is undermined. * Burden of proof — Prosecution must prove identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt; silence by accused does not shift burden.
|
20 November 2009 |
|
Reported
A conviction based solely on an improperly admitted certified cautioned statement against the applicant cannot stand.
* Criminal law - evidence - admissibility of cautioned/confession statements - onus under s.27(2) of the Evidence Act to prove voluntariness
* Evidence - documents - primary evidence rule (s.66) and inadmissibility of uncertified secondary copies without justification
* Identification evidence - reliability versus requirement for corroboration
* Appellate review - expunction of improperly admitted evidence and effect on conviction
|
19 November 2009 |
|
The appellant’s conviction, based solely on an improperly admitted cautioned statement and inadmissible certified copy, was quashed.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned statements – section 27(2) Evidence Act – onus to prove voluntariness; Evidence – primary vs secondary evidence – section 66 Evidence Act – certified copies; Identification evidence – reliability and (mis)direction on corroboration; Appeal – conviction quashed where improperly admitted confession is sole basis.
|
19 November 2009 |
|
Reported
Appellant's conviction and 30-year sentence for rape upheld; PF3 expunged for non-compliance with s.240(3), identification and eyewitness evidence accepted.
* Criminal law – Rape – Identification by moonlight where complainant familiar with accused – flight on detection – credibility of child and mother eyewitnesses.
* Evidence – Medical report (PF3) – Requirement to call examining doctor under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – failure leads to expungement.
* Procedure – Voir dire of child witness – competence and duty to tell the truth.
* Sentence – Mandatory minimum vs life imprisonment where age not proved.
|
19 November 2009 |
|
Identification by a familiar child complainant upheld; PF3 expunged for non‑compliance with s.240(3), conviction and 30‑year sentence sustained.
Criminal law – Rape – identification by a familiar complainant at night; evidentiary procedure – PF3/medical report inadmissible where s.240(3) CPA not complied with; voire dire of child witness; reliance on mother’s corroborative evidence; sentencing and proof of victim’s age.
|
19 November 2009 |
|
An improperly admitted certified confession, lacking proof of voluntariness and original document, led to quashing of conviction.
* Evidence Act s.27(2) – onus on prosecution to prove confession was voluntary – mandatory compliance required. * Evidence Act s.66 – documents to be proved by primary evidence; certified copies are secondary evidence requiring justification. * Admission of cautioned/confession statements – accused must be given opportunity to object and court must satisfy itself of voluntariness. * Effect of expunging improperly admitted confession – if no remaining evidence, conviction must be quashed. * Identification evidence – reliability, not automatic requirement of corroboration, is the key inquiry.
|
19 November 2009 |
| October 2009 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where child’s evidence lacked voir dire/corroboration and cautioned statement was admitted without voluntariness inquiry.
* Criminal procedure – Evidence of child witness – voir dire required to determine competency and oath-taking; absence renders evidence unsworn and necessitates corroboration.
* Criminal procedure – Cautioned/confessional statement – court must inquire into voluntariness before admission; failure to do so renders statement inadmissible.
* Substantive law – Statutory rape – prosecution must prove victim’s age; inconsistent or unproven age attracts benefit of doubt to accused.
* Procedural irregularities – incurable defects vitiating conviction and sentence.
|
12 October 2009 |
| May 2009 |
|
|
Reported
Minor omissions in a notice of appeal under Rule 61 are not fatal absent prejudice; substantial compliance suffices.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 61(5),(6),(7) – "Substantial" compliance with Form B – Minor omissions not fatal where no prejudice – Notice institutes appeal but does not confer jurisdiction.
|
26 May 2009 |