BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LAW

QUESTION:

DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASESSHIFT TO THE ACCUSED?

According to Osborn’s concise Law Dictionary,1 The team Burden of

proof can be defined as the evidence, which satisfies the court as to the

truth of a fact. This simply means what the court has to look at and be

convinced that an act was committed or not. It can also be further

defined according to H.H Denis2, as the legal obligation on a party to

satisfy the fact finder (who happens to be a judge, jury, or magistrate) on

a specified standard of proof that certain facts are true.

Generally speaking in criminal law the burden of proof lies on the

prosecution and the prosecutor in this case holds the burden of proving

the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt, and if there are left any

doubts in the mind of the judge, jury or magistrate then the court will

have no other option but to acquit the offender. The fact that the

prosecution holds the burden of proving the guilt of a person is further

brought about by the fact underlined in the constitution of this country. It

should be noted that Article 28 subsection 3, part (a) of the constitution of

Uganda 3 states that: “Every personWho is charged with a criminal offence be presumed to be innocentuntil proved guilty or until that person has pleaded guilty”.

Again this under scores the fact that the prosecution holds the onus of

providing the guilt of an offender beyond reasonable doubt. A good, case

to elaborate this issue is the one of WOOLMINGTON Vs. D.P.P 4

Woolmington was charged for murdering his wife by shooting, he

admitted that she was killed by a bullet fired from a riffle which he was

handling, but said that he squeezed the trigger, involuntarily, while

1 Roger Bird, Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary

2 H.H.Denis; Law of evidence

3 Article 28, subsection 3 part (a) constitution of Uganda 1995

4 [1935] AC, Pg 462.

endeavouring to induce her to return to live with him by threatening to

shoot himself, Woolmington was convicted. An appeal to the court of

appeal was dismissed but a further appeal to the House of Lords,

succeeded, and Woolmington’s conviction was quashed. In the House of

Lords, LORD SANKEY said: “ ……. throughout the wave of the English

criminal law, one golden thread is always to be seen that is the duty of

the prosecution to prove the person’s guilt…… the principle that the

prosecution must prove the guilt of the prison is part of the criminal law

of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained”.

There fore the rule that the prosecution must prove the accused guilt,

beyond reasonable doubt means that in principle the prosecution must

prove to nothing any defence raised by the accused. This clearly under

scores the fact that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused, heavily

lies on the prosecution. Its they who have to show to court that such an

accused cannot be left to go unpunished for his /her crime because he /

she bares the utmost criminal responsibility and must show the evidence

thereof;

To further drive the point home, I yet have another case to discuss, this

issue, it’s the one of OKEITH OKALE and others Vs. REPUBLIC5. In

this case, 4 appellants were convicted of murder, and the issue before

court was identification and the prosecution case consisted of evidence

from the widow of the deceased, and that of dying declaration…. In this

case the Judge held a prosecution case, and then cast on the appellants the

burden of disproving it or raising doubts about it. It was held, the burden

of proof in criminal proceedings is throughout on the prosecution, and its

duty of the trial Judge to look at the evidence as a whole, so the appeal

5[1965] E.A Pg. 555

was allowed conviction squashed and death sentences set aside. The

point to note here is that the right decision should be that the burden of

proof should lie on the prosecution and not on the accused. It’s the

prosecution who have the burden of proving the guilt beyond reasonable

doubt.

Further still we yet still have another case supporting the fact that the

burden of proof shifts on the prosecution, it’s the case of SEKITOLEKO

Vs. UGANDA6. In this case the appellant was charged with robbery

contrary to section 272 and punishable under section 273 of the penal

code7. His defence was Alibi8. Alibi according to dictionary of Law, “

This is evidence tending to show that by reason of the presence of the

accused at a particular or in a particular area at a particular time he

was not or was unlikely to have been at the place where the offence is

alleged to have committed at the time of the alleged commission”. In the

course of his Judgement the learned magistrate said that the burden of

proving Alibi lay on the appellant, he was convicted and sentenced to 3

years imprisonment, he appealed and it was held that as general rule of

law the burden on the prosecution of proving the guilt of a person beyond

reasonable doubt never shifts whether the defence set up an Alibi or

something else. It was further held that the burden of proving and Alibi

doesn’t lie on the prisoner and the trial magistrate had misdirected

himself. So the appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence

squashed. This again casts a very fine picture of the fact in Alibi cases;

the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.

6 (1967) EAR 531

7 Section 272 and 273 of the penal code of Uganda, Laws of Uganda. Cap. 106

8 Dictionary of Law 6th Edition Pg. 18

Whereas it’s a rule that the prosecution must prove the accused guilt,

beyond reasonable doubt, this has been watered down by the fact that in

many offences, the accused has the burden of proving something,

although his defence when he holds the burden is lighter than that borne

by the prosecution in proving guilt, for he as the accused only proves the

facts on the balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.

An accused to begin with, according to Roger Bird9, is one charged with

an offence, and here discussed below are some of the instances when the

burden of proof shifts to the accused.

The Burden of proof will shift to the accused when a person pleads a

defence of insanity. The correct definition of the term insanity is base

upon the rules base in M’NAUGHTON’s case10, the case provides that a

defendant must establish that one is suffering a defeat of wisdom arising

from a disease of mind, resulting in the defendant being unaware of the

nature and quantity of his act. The leading statement was brought forth in

the M’NAUGHTON’s case that everyone is proved sane until the

centrally is proved to be the satisfaction of the Jury or the court. This

M’NAUGHTON’s rule is incorporated in section 1111 and section 1212 of

he penal code;

“Every person is presumed to be of sound mind, and to have been

of sound mind at any time which comes in question until the

contrary is proved.”

And section 12; “A person is not criminally responsible for an act or

omission if at a time of doing the act or making the omission, he is

through any disease affecting his mind, incapable of under standing what

he is doing, or of knowing that he ought not to do the act or make the

9 Roger Bird; Oborn’s concise Law dictionary.

10 (1843) 8 E.R. Pg. 718.

11 section 11 of the penal code cap. 106 Laws of Uganda.

12 Ibid, section 12.

omission but a person may be criminally responsible for an act or

omission, although his mind is affected by disease if such disease does

not in fact produce upon his mind one or other of the affects afore

mentioned in reference to that act or omission.”

It should be noted that under section 12 of the penal code, it’s the accused

to set up a defence of insanity, the prosecution is not allowed to state that

the accused committed the offence because he was insane. In Uganda,

statutes like mental treatment Act Cap 27, the magistrate court Act

amended 1970 section 111 up to 116, the trial of indictment decree of

1971 section 43 up to 47 and the penal code of Uganda section 11 & 12

deals with insanity, so when the accused pleads that he committed a

crime because he was insane section 11 and 12 of the penal code laws of

Uganda cap 106 will apply and usually the defence of insanity applies at

two stages, i.e. before the trial and at the trial. Its expected for the

accused to set up a defence of insanity and not the prosecution or the

Judge, so that if the denies having committed the offence, then the issue

of insanity could be pre judicial, and it can further be noted that in this

case the Burden of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, rather verdict

reached on the basis of balance of probabilities.

Further more still under the insanity clause we yet have another fact

called irresistible impulse, when the burden of proof shifts to the accused,

a case for consideration is one of SHEKANGA Vs. R (1948)13 15

E.A.C.A 158, his defence was insanity after being accused of murder, he

acclaimed that the devil had been arguing him for 1 month to kill and he

gave into the temptation, I this case the Burden of proof lies on him to

prove to court based on the balance of probabilities try and prove

13 (1948)15 EACA, 158

otherwise. Also another division still under insanity is the case when one

pleads diminishing responsibility; this fact is provided for under section

18814 (A) (1) of the penal code, which states as follows;

“Where a person is found guilty of the murder of being a party to

the

murder of another and the court is satisfied that he was suffering

from

such abnormality of mind. (Whether arising from a condition of

arrested

or retorted development of mind or any inherent causes or induced

by

disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental

responsibility for his

acts and omissions in during or being a party to the murder, the

court shall make a special finding to the effect that the accused was

guilty of murder but with diminished responsibility.”

The principle discussed in the case of R Vs. BYNE15 where the appellant

admitted struggling a girl and mutilating her dead body, it was discovered

by medical evidence that the killing was under sexual desire, he would

suffer from violent sexual desire finding it hard to control his lust and yet

when not under the influence of the perverted sexual desire he would be a

normal person. It was noted that at the time the accused killed the girl, he

was suffering from perverted sexual desire. It was considered that though

he was considered that he was not insane in sexual technical terms of

insanity as laid down in the M’NAUGHTON’s rule case, the issue was

that at the time of killing was he suffering from any abnormality of mind?

14 Section 188 (4) (1) of the penal code, cap. 106 Laws of Uganda.

15 (1960) 2 ALL ERI (1960) 3 ALL ERI

The holding was that the verdict of murder be reduced to manslaughter.

Here again we see a typical example of when the burden shifts to the

accused to prove basing on balance of probability that he can commit the

felony in his rightful mind.

Another major area of concern when the burden of proof shifts to the

accused is in the case of when one pleads intoxication. However it

should be noted that under section 3 (1) of the penal code, laws of

Uganda, says;

“Save as provided in this section, intoxication shall not constitute a

defence to any criminal charge”.

Except, as indicated in part 2;

“Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason

there

of the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained

of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know

what he

was doing and …..”

This means that intoxication is not a defence but only when the

intoxication or drunkenness is involuntary, when one becomes insane due

to drunkenness or when one does not know if he is doing wrong in

drinking, and lastly when the mensrea has been affected by the

drunkenness. It should be noted however that a person can become

intoxicated, either through his own voluntary intake of drugs, or being

forced either by trickery in taking of drugs or alcohol.

When relying on the defence of intoxication, its paramount that one has

to prove to court that he was incapable of forming a specific intent and

did not so because of the alcohol or even though capable of forming the

method of intent did not do so before intoxication, so here again we see

the onus is on the accused to prove based on the balance of probability.

In the case of MANTARA Vs. R16, it was argued as follows;

“It’s of course correct that if the accused seeks to set up a defence

of insanity by reason of intoxication the burden of establishing that

defence rests upon hi in that he must at least demonstrate the

probability of what he seeds to prove, but if the plea is really that

the accused was by reason of intoxication incapable of forming the

specific intention required to constitute the offence charged, it’s a

misdirection of forming the specific intention required to constitute

the offence charged, it a misdirection if the court lays the onus of

establishing this upon he accused.”

This can further be supported with the case of HILL Vs.

BAXTER17, where Lord Deblin said “In any crime involving

mensrea,

the prosecution must prove guilty intent but if the defence

suggests

drunkardness they must offer evidence of it, indeed didn’t

have to prove it .“

Again this under scores the very basic idea of the burden of proof shifting

to the accused in case of intoxication.

Another case to drive the point further is that of CHEMININGWA Vs.

R18, here again it was categorically stated that;

“the accused seeks to set up a defence if insanity by reason of

intoxication, the burden establishing that defence, rests upon him,

16 [1955] E.A.C.A 502

17 42 C.A.R 1957

18 (1956) 23 E.A.C.A 451

in that he must at least demonstrate a probability of what he seeks

to prove but if the plea is merely that the accused was by reason of

intoxication incapable of taking the specification required to

constitute the offence charged. It’s misdirection, if the trial court

lays the onus of establishing this upon the accused.”

It’s also important to point out the fact that if a person does something

while drunk, that he would not have done while sober will not itself give

rise to the defence of intoxication, that is to say a drunk and intent in

nevertheless intent.

Another case to support the issue of intoxication, as one of the instances

when the burden of proof shifts to the accused is that of D.P.P. Vs.

BEARD19 in this case Beard was accused of murdering a girl of 13 years,

during the process of having carnal knowledge. He suffocated her to

death in bid of preventing her from escaping. The defence laid forth was

that the verdict should be man slaughter and not murder on the ground

that there was no intention on the part of Beard to cause death, and

further more, claimed that he was too drunk to know that what was doing

would eventually inflict serious injury and consequently cause death.

The issue before court therefore was that the accused was intoxicated, and

had to be entirely incapable of causing intent of murder.

It was held by Lord Birken head that; “……… in cases under this

holding, the M’naughton’s rules should be applied and if its found that

the accused was in such a state that he did not know, the nature and

quality of the act or that the act was wrongful, his act would be excusable

on the ground of insanity and a special verdict of guilty but insane

recorded……. there was no evidence that the accused was too drunk to

19 [1920] A.C 494

form the intent of committing rape. Under these circumstances, it was

proved that death was caused by an act of violence done in furtherance of

the felony of rape. Such a killing amounted to murder therefore the

appeal by the DPP was allowed and a conviction of murder restored’”

Further more, we can also cite the case of WREH (or DEE) Vs R20. In

this case the appellant was charged with murder, for stubbing and killing

the deceased after he intervened in a quarrel between himself and another

person. However prier to the incident the defendant had been drinking

and actually spoke rationally to the police after being arrested, and

showed no signs of intoxication when examine by a doctor a few hours

later. He however said he was so drunk at the time of the incident, and by

next morning he couldn’t remember what had happened. It was held in

this case;

“Drunkardness will not amount to the defence unless there is

evidence

that renders the accused incapable of forming specific intent,

necessary to constitute the offence charged and rebults the

presumption that the man intends the natural consequences of his

acts.”

The above question can be interpreted to mean that the drunkardness

would have proceeded to such a degree as to produce actual insanity. So

he appeal was allowed and a conviction of manslaughter substituted.

Also in CHEMININGWA Vs. R21, It was stated that;

“If the accused seeks to set up a defence of insanity by reason of

intoxication, the burden of establishing that defence rests upon him

20 (1950 – 56) ALR SL 153

21 (1956) 23 E.A.C.A 451

in that he must at least demonstrate a probability of what he seeks

to prove, but if the plea is merely that the accused was by reason of

intoxication incapable of forming the specific intention required to

constitute the offence charged, it’s a misdirection if the trial court

lays the onus of the burden of establishing this upon the accused.”

Lord Denning is quoted to have said that;

“If a drunken person is so drunken person is so drunk that he

doesn’t know what he is doing, he has a defence to any charge

such as a murder or wounding with intent in which a specific intent

is essential, but he still liable to be convicted by manslaughter or

unlawful wounding for which no specific intent is necessary.”

Lord Denning further on says that;

“A drunken man is said to have capacity to form the specific intent

necessary to constitute the crime unless evidence is being given

from which it can reasonably be in furred that he was incapable of

forming it.”

And so intoxication only acts an instigating factor and may be considered

in sentencing the convicted person.

The leading case in intoxication is the one of A.G. of NORTHERN

IRELAND Vs. GALLANGER22. In this case before drinking the liquor,

he defendant had intended to kill his wife, a trial judge directed the jury

to apply the M’naughton’s test, to the time when the liquor was taken,

and not to the time of killing, the court of appeal allowed the appeal from

the conviction of murder. The appeal was allowed subject to very limited

exceptions that drunkenness is no defence nor is it a crime produced by

22 [1963] AC 369

drunkenness. Sir Mathew Hale said, effect of reasonIn defence of

intoxication the following factors has to be considered;

1. Self-induced intoxication, can be raised where a defendant charged

with a crime of specific intent but not where the change involves

the crime of basic intent, a basic intent crime is where the mensrea

does not exceed the actus – rus.

2. Dutch carriage, this was emphasised by Lord Dinnings in the case

of AG of NORTHERN IRELAND Vs. GALLANGER23. He stated

that a defendant who deliberately gets himself drunk in order to

overcome his nerves or inhibitions in committing a specific intent

crime cannot relay on his intoxicated state at the time of the

offence as evidence of negativating mensrea. He stated that

evidence of his mind before he got drunk is enough to condemn

him, coupled with the act which he intended to do and did.

Still under intoxication, a defendant may seek to raise a defence of

intoxication on the basis of his being forced to take intoxicant or having

been deceived to consume it. This is called involuntarily intoxication, in

this case it should be noted that a person must not be reckless, as was

discussed in the case of R Vs. ALLEN24. In this case the appellant

consumed a quantity of wine without realising that it had an exceptionally

high alcoholic content, he could not contend that he is consuming a low

or non alcoholic content, he could not contend that his resulting

intoxication was involuntary i.e. the defendant who honestly believes that

he is consuming a low or non alcoholic drink should be able to contend

that he did not act recklessly in consuming it. Further the court has to

consider whether a drink was administered by another. It was discussed

23 1963 AC 39

24 [1988]CRMLR 698

in the case of R Vs. KINGSTON25. In this case the defendant was a

sexual paedophile, who committed an indecent assault on a 15-year-old

boy. He claimed that prior to these acts, he had been drugged by his co–

defendant and therefore he couldn’t recall the incident, the court of appeal

held that if there were evidence that his inhibitions had been affected by

the drug supertutiously administered by a third party with a result that he

acted upon an intention to commit an act that he would not have had, but

for the effect of drugs should not bare criminal responsibility for his

action.

So far we have seen two instances in which the burden of proof shifts to

the accused i.e. in the case of insanity and in the case of intoxication, and

now we will look at a third issue, this is in case of express statutory

provision. It’s a common fact for the statute to provide that it shall be for

the defence to prove certain facts, for example in section 285;

1. “Where three or more persons are found loitering, wondering,

moving about or concealing them selves, whilst any of them is

armed with an article to which this section applies, with the

intention of committing an offence relating to property or an

offence against the person, every such person shall be guilty of a

felony and shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years.”

2. “In a prosecution for an offence under this section, proof that the

accused was so found and so armed shall be sufficient evidence

that the accused had an intention to commit an offence relating to

property or an offence against the person unless the accused gives

an explanation of his conduct which satisfies the court that he had

no such intention.” Also evidence Act cap 43 section 101 up to

105.

25 (1993) 3 WLR 519

It can be clearly shown from the above that this section of the penal code

casts the legal burden of proof upon the accused. In R Vs.

PATTERSON26. It was held that; “It seems to the court that in the first

instance, the prosecution must prove that the prisoner was found in

procession (by night) of either an implement which can properly be

described as one of those specifically named, or or an instrument capable

of in fact being used as house breaking implement from its common

though not exclusive use for that purpose of from a particular

circumstances of the case in question, once possession of such an

implement has been shown the burden shifts to the prisoner to prove on

the balance of probabilities that there was no excuse for his possession of

he implement at the time in question and place.” Therefore the legal

burden is placed upon the accused to prove basing on balance of

probabilities.

Further still in the case of D. KAYONGO Vs. UGANDA27, where justice

Phadke clearly state; “the burden of proof lay upon the accused to show

lawful excuses for possession of keys found on him. He could fulfil this

burden on the balance of probabilities.”

Also section 299 (1) of the penal code act, “When any police officer has

stopped, searched or detained any vessel, boat, aircraft, vehicle or person

under he provisions of section 20 of the criminal procedure code or

searched any building, vessel, carriage, box, receptable or a place

pursuant to a search warrant issued under section 69 of the magistrate’s

court act, 1970, and has seized anything which may reasonably be

suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, and if the person

26 (1962) 1 ALLER 340

27 CRIMINAL CASE 29 (1971

in whose possession such a thing was found shall not give on account to

the satisfaction of the court of how he came by the same, he shall be

guilty of a misdemeanour.”

The above statute also casts a legal burden of proof upon the accused.

Further more automatism as a defence, is also an instance when the

burden of proof shifts to the accused, it’s a defence if an act or omission

ora given event with which the accused is charged was involuntary. For

example it can be argued that in the case of WOOLMINGTON Vs.

D.P.P.28, an act or omission or event on the part of the accused is

involuntary where its beyond his control.

The concise oxford dictionary 9th edition defines automatism as the

performance of actions unconsciously or sub consciously or involuntary

action. One of the best examples of involuntary action is one done with

compulsion i.e. where its compelled by external physical force. e.g. in the

case of HILL Vs. BAXTER29. It was stated that a man couldn’t be said to

be driving where at the material time he was attached by a swam of bees,

and was prevented from any directional control over the vehicle. Any

movement on his arms, and legs being solely caused the action of the

bees involuntary acts are done by muscle without any control of the mind.

In law automatism is limited to cases where there is total destruction of

voluntary control, i.e. it’s the same as loss of consciousness, impaired or

reduce awareness. E.g in the case of A. G’s REFERENCE 2/199230. The

case where the accused argued that there was psychiatric evidence that D

had been in condition known as “driving without awareness” and that

this amounted to a state of automatism, however on appeal by the AG, the

28 (1935) AC462

29 (1958) 1 Q .B 277, or (1958) 1 ALLER 193

30 [1994] Q. B. 91 (1993) 4 ALLER 683

AG referred the case of the court of appeal on a point of law namely,

whether the psychiatric evidence for the defence could amount to

evidence of automatism. It was held that for automatism there had to be a

total destruction of voluntary control on his part, impaired control wasn’t

enough. Lord Denning is a gain quoted having said that the accusers own

word will rarely be sufficient unless its supported by medical evidence.

It also be noted that Bonafide claim of right instance when the burden of

proof shifts to the accused, this defence is provided for under section 8 of

the penal code “ A person is not criminally responsible in respect of an

offence relating to

property, if the act done or omitted to be done by him with respect

to the

property was done in the exercise of an honest claim of right and

without intention to defraud.”

In this issue the case the case, which may be cited maybe CHIBIJANA

Vs. R31

Another issue to consider in which the burden of proof shifts to the

accused is in the mistake of fact defence, if a person raises the defence of

mistake of fact, if he adduces this evidence, the case will proceed as if the

facts were true, the facts he adduces must convince the court that he acted

honestly and reasonably. Under section 10 of the penal code “A person

who does or omits an act under an honest

and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of

things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any

greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as he

believed to exist.”

31 12 EACA 104.

Mistake of fact is a defence because it shows luck of mensrea, mistake of

fact means in section 10 that a person dues or omits to do, or when an

accused commits the unlawful act he was mistaken as certain material

fact/ facts. It must however not be mistake of law or the consequences of

law.

A case in citation is one of R Vs. SULTAN MAGINGA32. In this case

the deceased person, a woman were lying in a vice field, after sexual

intercourse, Sultan was going to guard against wild pigs and saw the

grass shaking and he called up to ask whether it was an animal or people

and there was no reply, Sultan threw a spear and killed a human being

thinking it was a pig. In this case the charge of murder was not sustained

because the killing was accidental. In the defence of mistake of fact, the

test of reasonable person is appealed. Here again we see the burden of

proof shifting to the accused in proving his innocence.

Also another issue in which the burden of proof shifts to the accused is

when there rises the issue of self defence or probably defence of property,

defence of a person, or public interest, here in this issue, according to

section 17 of the penal code, “Subject to any express provisions in this

code, or any other law in force in

Uganda, criminal responsibility

(a) Further the use of force in the defence of a person and

property and

(b) In respect of rash, recklessness, negligent acts, shall be

determined according to the principles of English law.”

And under section 372 of the penal code; “Every person who, knowing

that a person designs to commit or is committing a felony,

32 (1969) HCD, 33

fails to use all reasonable means to prevent the commission or

completion there of, is guilty of a misdemeanour.”

In other words every person has a duty of preventing a committed felony

by the other, when a person attempts to commit a felony against the other

it’s a duty of every person to defend the other, even by use of force.

However in case a person kills another, when trying to prevent the

commission of an offence, before she/he may plead, but before a person

can plead self defence he or she must show that he has Bonafida belief

(utmost food faith). Here again the onus is on this person to prove or

show that Bonafide belief in court. Therefore in this case the burden of

proof will have rested on the accused. See the case of A.G. of NYASA

LAND Vs. JACKSON 1957 R &MR 443.

In conclusion therefore, the fact that the burden of proof lies on the side

of the prosecution in criminal cases is a well-established fact, and the

prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt as Smith and Hogan

rightly puts it; “It’s a general

Principle of criminal law that a person may not be convicted of a

crime unless the prosecution have proved beyond, reasonable

doubt.”

This rule of general application, however it, should be pointed out that

there are exceptions when the burden of proof shifts to the accused in

cases of when one raises the defence of insanity, intoxication,

automatism, statutory provisions, Bonafide claim of right, mistake of fact

and self defence and in such cases where the onus of proof is put upon the

above instances, the accused satisfies it if he proves his case on a balance

of probabilities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Smith and Hogan; CRIMINAL LAW, 9th Edition, Butter Worths,

London,

Edinburg, Dublin 1999.

2. Penal code of Uganda; cap, 106 Laws of Uganda.

3. Evidence Act cap 43, Laws of Uganda.

4. Roger Bird, Osborns concise law dictionary.

5. H.H. Denis Law of evidence.

6. Criminal cases; 8th Edition Edited by Leshire Rutherford and Sheila.

7. Florence Nakachwa; class room notes.