Rex v Weraga (Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1943) [1943] EACA 12 (1 January 1943)

### COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA

Before Sir Joseph Sheridan, C. J. (Kenya), Sir Norman Whitley, C. J. (Uganda) and MARK WILSON, Ag. C. J. (Tanganyika)

#### REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)

# EBRAHIM WERAGA s/o WAMALA, Appellant (Original Accused)

## Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1943

Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Uganda

Criminal Law—Murder—Insanity—Section 13 Penal Code—Irresistible impulse as a defence.

The accused was convicted of the murder of his mother, and the defence was insanity. The trial Judge held agreeing with the assessors that the onus of proving that defence had not been discharged.

Held (26-1-43).—That the law does not recognize irresistible impulse as a defence to any criminal charge.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appellant absent, unrepresented.

### Stacey, Crown Counsel (Kenya), for the Crown.

JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J.).—It might appear from reading the record that the accused, according to popular notions, was mad when he killed his mother, but what this Court has to consider and what the learned Judge considered is something precise and quite different. The question for consideration is whether insanity has been established within the meaning of section 13 of the Penal Code which provides: -

"A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is through any disease affecting his mind incapable of understanding what he is doing, or of knowing that he ought not to do the act or make the 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 effects above-mentioned in reference to that act or omission."

The learned Judge found not and we have no ground for coming to a different conclusion. It is possible that the accused's act sprang from irresistible impulse, but the law does not recognize irresistible impulse as a defence and so the case is one for the consideration of the Executive. The appeal is dismissed.