R. v. Melanyi Crim. Sass 59-A-71; 9/9/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

 

R. v. Melanyi Crim. Sass 59-A-71; 9/9/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

The accused was charged with murder. He made a confession to killing the deceased at the time of arrest, which he later withdrew.

Held: (1) “The accused admitted killing the deceased. When the trial came he retracted his admission. It is trite law, and authorities abound on this point, that n admission or confession which ha been retracted cannot support a conviction unless it is corroborated by other evidence. The East African Court of Appeal in Tuwamoi v. Uganda 1967 E. A. 84 referred to an extract from R. v. Keisheimeiza 7 E. A. C.A. wherein Woodrofter and Ameer Ali 9^th Edition p. 277 were quoted as saying: - “It is unsafe for a court to rely on and act on a confession which has been retracted, unless after consideration of the whole evidence in the case the court is in a position  to come to the unhesitating conclusion that the confession is true, that is to say, usually unless the confession is corroborated in material particulars by creditable independent evidence or unless the character of the confession and the circumstances under which it was taken indicate its truth.” Their Lordships went through a long list of precedents on this point. They then clarified the position (in the Tuwamoi case) as follows: - “We would summaries the position thus – a trial court should accept any confession which has been retracted ………. With caution and must before founding a conviction on such confession is fully satisfying that in the circumstances of the case that the confession is true ………. Usually a court will only act on the confession if corroborated in some material particular by independent evidence accepted by the court. But corroboration is not necessary in law and he court may act on a confession alone if it is fully satisfied after considering all the material points and surrounding circumstances that the confession cannot but be true.” If I understand them, their Lordships are merely paraphrasing the rule that it is unsafe to convict on a retracted confession if there is no independent evidence in support of the confession.” (2) “But for his admission, the accused would not have been charged in the first place. Now that he has retracted the admission it would be most unsafe to convict him when there is no evidence to corroborate his retracted admission. The circumstances of the case do not sufficiently warrant the conviction of the accused.” (3) Accused acquitted.