Kionzo v Queen (Privy Council Appeal No. 48 of 1954) [1950] EACA 398 (1 January 1950)

# JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Before LORD OAKSEY, LORD TUCKER, LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM. LORD SOMERVELL OF HARROW and MR. L. M. D. DE SILVA

## MATALO s/o KIONZO, Appellant

# THE QUEEN, Respondent

#### Privy Council Appeal No. 48 of 1954.

## Judgment—Contents—Trial with Assessors.

The appellant was convicted of murder. It was contended that the trial Judge (who sat with assessors) did not properly direct himself with regard to the possibility of a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of accident or self-defence. He had rejected a view of the facts which alone could have afforded any ground for such a verdict.

The appeal is reported solely on this point.

*Held* (15-3-55).—Although a trial Judge, who alone is responsible for the final verdict, is required to give his reasons he cannot be expected to direct his observations to aspects of the case which are irrelevant to his findings of fact but which might have been necessary in a charge to a jury.

Appeal dismissed.

No cases.

JUDGMENT (delivered by Lord Tucker).—Nor do their Lordships consider that any criticism can be directed to the judgment because the Judge did not deal with the possibility of a verdict of not guilty on the ground of accident or self defence. [The conclusion which he drew shows that he must have entitrely<br>rejected a view of the facts based upon portions of the appellant's different statements which alone could have afforded any ground for such a verdict.] In this connexion it must be remembered that this is an appeal from the judgment of a Judge who was alone responsible for the final verdict and that although he is required to give his reasons he cannot be expected to direct his observations to aspects of the case which are irrelevant to his findings of fact but which might have been necessary in a charge to a jury.