R. vs. KUSASI & ORS. [1959]DLCA2049

Date	1959-10-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA2049

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J.

GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.

OLLENNU J.

MOORE FOR THE APPELLANTS (AZALGA KUSASI AZABUGU KUSASI AND AZOBIDE KUSASI).

GLASGOW FOR THE RESPONDENT (CROWN).

THE COURT ASKS GLASGOW IF HE SUPPORTS THE CONVICTION.

[1959]DLCA2049
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">R. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">KUSASI &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 332<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
5TH OCTOBER, 1959..<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MOORE FOR
THE APPELLANTS (AZALGA KUSASI AZABUGU KUSASI AND AZOBIDE KUSASI). <o:p></o:p>

GLASGOW
FOR THE RESPONDENT (CROWN).<o:p></o:p>

THE COURT
ASKS GLASGOW IF HE SUPPORTS THE CONVICTION.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J., GRANVILLE SHARP
J.A. AND OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE AG. C.J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, and continued:)<o:p></o:p>We do not
think that there was a concerted intention to kill and we are satisfied that
the killing was an action of the first two appellants only, committed in
circumstances when each had lost the power of self-control. There is no
evidence that the third appellant participated in the assault after the
deceased first fell to the ground. His statement, which stands uncontradicted,
is that when the first two appellants started to beat the deceased while he
struggled on the ground, he (third appellant) ran away from the scene. We think
that by so doing he showed that was not prepared to be associated with what
might—and did—occur.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>What is
clear on the evidence is that the deceased was a person who was believed by the
appellants to have been accused by the villagers of felony, and who was
endeavouring to avoid arrest by the appellants. The law applicable to these
fact is contained in section 61 (1) of the Criminal Code:—<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Any
person may, with or without warrant or other legal process, arrest and detain
another person who has committed a felony, may, if the other person, having
notice or believing that he is accused of felony, avoids arrest by resistance
or flight or escapes or endeavours to escape from custody, use any force which
is necessary for his arrest, detention, or recapture, and may kill him, if he
cannot by any means otherwise be arrested, detained, or retaken.”<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial-Judge did not direct the assessors, or himself, as to this
provision of the law. In his opinion there was no justification for the
accusation of theft. He appears to have given undue weight to the deposition of
a witness who (for no assignable reason) could not be got to attend the trial,
and whose reliability, therefore, could not be tested by his demeanour in the
witness-box. His evidence at the Preliminary Inquiry was that he was that
companion of the deceased whom the villagers had accused of felony on the fatal
night, and who had escaped arrest by the appellants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants at their trial offered no evidence; each relied on the statement
made to the police; and the prosecution had no evidence other than the
statements of the appellants concerning the killing and the circumstances as
shown above. As in his own judgment the prosecution case rested on the
statements made by the appellants to the police when charged with murder, the
learned trial-Judge had no alternative but to have regard to the account of the
matter which those statements contained, and it was his duty to draw attention
to the section to which we have referred.<o:p></o:p>