QUESTION 1 a)

Brief facts

Bayo, Kaboggoza, Tusubira and Semanda met for coffee at Highend restaurant in Kibuli and Bayo
proposed a heist on Stanbic Bank. Bayo to purchase the guns that shall be used in case of
interference by armed men at the bank. Kaboggoza to secure the map into the bank and the copies
of the keys to the cash vault from his girlfriend, Namamonde who works as a secretary at the bank.
Tusubira to drive the double cabin pick up where the boxes of the money shall be dropped after
Semanda has carried them from the basement. Namamonde, Kaboggoza’s girlfriend after having
been filled in on the plan by Kaboggoza, pretended to agree to it because she feared the ruthlessness
of her boyfriend. She informed the police of the whole plan, time, date and place of departure. After
completing the robbery Kaboggoza, Tusubira and Semanda were arrested from their home in kisugu.
After looking Bayo for some days, he was found hiding at his home which he shared with his wife
Zawedde who knew of what happened but promised her that she would never report him to police.

Issues

Whether kaboggoza is an aider to the crime

Whether Bayo is a procurer to the crime

Whether Namamonde is a procurer to the crime.

Whether Tusubira is an accessory after the fact to the crime

Whether Zawedde is an accessory after the fact to the crime

Law Applicable

1995 constitution

Penal code Act

Case law

Resolution

Whether kaboggoza is an aider to the crime

According to Article 28(3)(a) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda provides of the presumption of
innocence and in the case of Woolmington V DPP, where the accused person was acquitted because
the prosecution had filed to prove beyond reasonable double.

Section 19(1)(c) of the Penal code act provides, when an offence is committed, each of the following
persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence and
may be charged with actually committing it—every person who aids or abets another person in
committing the offence. In the case of Uganda v Odhiambo & Anor Justice Stephen Mubiru explained
the difference between aiding and abetting. He stated that: Aiding means assisting (usually giving
material support) or helping another to commit a crime and in this incidence Kaboggoza is an aider
due to the material support he offered at the scene of crime of giving in a map and keys of the vault.
Whether Bayo is a procurer to the crime

According to Article 28(3)(a) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda provides of the presumption of
innocence and in the case of Woolmington V DPP, where the accused person was acquitted because
the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable double.

Section 19(2) of the Penal Code provides that Any person who procures another to do or omit to do
any act of such a nature that if he or she had done the act or made the omission the act or omission
would have constituted an offence on his or her part, is guilty of an offence of the same kind and is
liable to the same punishment as if he or she had done the act or made the omission; and he or she
may be charged with doing the act or making the omission. Lord Widgery CJ in the case A.G’s
reference No…. of 1977 observed that you procure a scheme by setting out to see that it happens
and taking appropriate steps to produce that happening. In this case the accused surreptitiously
laced a friend ‘s drink with a double measure of alcohol, knowing that the friend would shortly be
driving home. The friend was convicted of drunken driving. The accused was charged as an
accomplice of the offence. The trial judge acquitted the accused on the grounds of no case to answer.
The court of appeal held that this submission should not have been allowed. It stated that the
accomplice ‘s act in procuration must be the cause in fact of the commission of the offence by the
principle i.e. in this case the amount of alcohol supplied must be shown to have taken the principle
blood to alcohol levels beyond the legal limit for driving. The court further held that as regards
procuring there was no requirement to prove agreement or consensus regarding the commission of
the offence. Therefore, Bayo is a procurer to the crime.

Whether Namamonde is a procurer to the crime.

According to Article 28(3)(a) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda provides of the presumption of and
in the case of Woolmington V DPP, where the accused person was acquitted because the
prosecution had filed to prove beyond reasonable double.

Section 19(2) of the Penal Code provides that Any person who procures another to do or omit to do
any act of such a nature that if he or she had done the act or made the omission the act or omission
would have constituted an offence on his or her part, is guilty of an offence of the same kind and is
liable to the same punishment as if he or she had done the act or made the omission; and he or she
may be charged with doing the act or making the omission. In scenario Namamonde could escape
liability as a procurer to the crime or being party to the crime because She informed the police of the
whole plan, time, date and place of departure

Whether Tusubira is an accessory after the fact to the crime

According to Article 28(3)(a) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda provides of the presumption of
innocence and this was portrayed in the case of Woolmington V DPP.

Section 366(1) of the Peanal Code defines accessories after the fact to mean a person who receives
or assists another who is, to his or her knowledge, guilty of an offence, in order to enable him or her
to escape punishment, becomes an accessory after the fact to the offence. In Davies v Director of
Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378, where the court held that the parties in the case had contributed
to the crime after it being acted and therefore Tusubira is an accessory after the fact to the crime
because he was to drive the double cabin pick up where the boxes of the money shall be dropped.

Whether Zawedde is an accessory after the fact to the crime

According to Article 28(3)(a) of the 1995 constitution of Uganda provides of the presumption of
innocence and in the case of Woolmington V DPP, where the accused person was acquitted because
the prosecution had filed to prove beyond reasonable double.

Section 366(1) of the Peanal Code defines accessories after the fact to mean a person who receives
or assists another who is, to his or her knowledge, guilty of an offence, in order to enable him or her
to escape punishment, becomes an accessory after the fact to the offence. In Davies v Director of
Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378, where the court held that the parties in the case were
accessories after the fact.

However Section 366(2) of the Penal code act A wife does not become an accessory after
the fact to an offence of which her husband is guilty by receiving or assisting him in order to enable
him to escape punishment; or by receiving or assisting, in her husband’s presence and by his
authority, another person who is guilty of an offence in the commission of which her husband has
taken part, in order to enable that other person to escape punishment; nor does a husband become
an accessory after the fact to an offence of which his wife is guilty by receiving or assisting her in
order to enable her to escape punishment.

Therefore, Zawedde being a wife to Bayo is not an accessory after the fact to the crime.

b)

Brief facts

Mukooba came to see his children but found his wife at home with Okello who she claimed to be her
friend. Mukooba was hurt, went to Koona bar, took seven bottles of crude waragi to get courage to
deal with the adulterers. When he came back home, he tried beating Okello but his wife intervened.
He pushed her, Nalule fell, hit her head on the concrete and died after arrival at the hospital. when
he went back to his newly rented room, he found Muwanguzi breaking into his house. He beat him
up which left him unconscious.

Issues

Whether Mukooba can raise a defense of intoxication

Whether Mukooba can raise a defense of accident

Law applicable

1995 constitution

Penal code act

Case law

Resolution
Whether Mukooba can raise a defense of intoxication

According to Article 28(3)(a) of the constitution provides that an accused person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty or until he pleads guilty. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the
persecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt as it was portrayed in the case of woolmington v
Dpp, where the accused person was acquitted because the prosecution ha failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt.

And in addition, Article 28(3)(c) of the 1995 constitution gives a right to the accused person to raise
any defense and therefore Mukooba has a right to raise a defence of intoxication.

In Section 12(2) of penal code act provides that; Intoxication shall be a defense to any criminal
charge if by reason of the intoxication the person charged at the time of the act or omission
complained of did not know that the act or omission was wrong or did not know what he or she was
doing. In Attoney General for North Ireland v Gallagher, the accused decided to kill his wife. He
bought a knife and a bottle of whisky which he drank to give himself "Dutch Courage". Then he killed
her with the knife. He subsequently claimed that he was so drunk that he did not know what he was
doing, or possibly even that the drink had brought on a latent psychopathic state so that he was
insane at the time of the killing. The House of Lords held that intoxication could not be a defense in
either case as the intent had been clearly formed, albeit before the killing took place. Therefore,
Mukooba couldn’t succeed in raising a defense of intoxication.

Whether Mukooba can raise a defense of accident

According to Article 28(3)(a) of the constitution provides that an accused person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty or until he pleads guilty. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the
persecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt as it was portrayed in the case of woolmington v Dpp,
where the accused person was acquitted because the prosecution ha failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt. And in addition, Article 28(3)(c) of the 1995 constitution gives a right to the
accused person to raise any defense and therefore Mukooba has a right to raise a defence of
intoxication.

According to section 8 of the Penal Code, a person is not criminally responsible for an act or
omission which occurs by accident. An accident is an event which a reasonable man in the shoes of
the accused would not have foreseen as likely or probable. In the case of Woolmington V DPP, the
accused person was acquitted for murder after raising a defence of accident. In the case of Leicester
V Pearson, the accused person was acquitted on the grounds that the murder was caused by
accident on the road. Therefore, can raise a defense of accident because the death of his wife was
without the intent of the final happening.