KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
COURSE: LLB
COURSE UNIT: CRIMINAL LIABLITY
YEAR: 1:2
SESSION: DAY
LECTURERES NAME: MISS. NAMBOZO SHARON
GROUP 2
STUDENTS NAME REG.NO SIGN
ATWONGIRE 2024-08-27564
DAISY[LEADER]
AKAMPURIRA 2024-08-27576
PROSPER[SECRETARY]
MAGERA EDWARD 2024-08-27540
MUTONYI EVET 2024-08-28841
NYAKATO ANNET 2024-08-27600
MUBIRU INNOCENT 2024-08-28164
KALYOWA BRIAN 2024-08-32230
KAKYE JANIPHER 2024-08-29224
NANTABAZI PATRICIA 2024-08-31790
OFFENCE OF INFANTICIDES
OFFENCE OF SUICIDE PACTS
INFANTCIDES
Infanticides refers to the act of killing an infant/a child under the age of twelve
months.
Section (180) of the Penal Code Act cap 128 provides that child becomes a
person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state
from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has an
independent circulation or not, and whether the novel string is severed or not.
Infanticide is generally defined under section (196) of the Penal Code act Cap 128 and
also under infanticides act of 1938 section (1) (1)
Section (196) of the Penal Code Act Cap 128 provides that “where a woman by
any willful act .or omission causes the death of her child being under the age of
twelve months, but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was
disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to
the child or by the reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the
child, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for the provisions
of this section the offence would have amounted to murder ,she commits the felony
of infanticide ,and may for such offence be dealt with and punished as if she had
been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of the child.
NOTE Infanticide can be a separate offence from murder and a woman who kills
her child with in the first year of life may be considered to have been suffering a
disturbance of mind which can be reduce the culpability of the offence. For example;
In the case of R V Namayanja 1960 ,in this case, the apeallant who gave birth out
of wedlock was convicted of murder of her newly born child, it was alleged that the
accused had not told her parents that she was pregnant, however her father on
febuary 1952 found a child crying inside the latrine, him and his wife tried to get the
child out of the latrine and took it to the hospital but unfortunately it died immediately
after reaching the hospital, The defendant alleged that she was unwell on that day
and the following day, that she did not know she was going to give birth, the fact that
it was her first time to give birth, she was in panic and fear, the trial judge acquitted
her and was set free from murder to infanticide.
According to Smith and Hogan 2nd edition page 240, infanticides should be
considered less reprehensible than other killings because;
i. The injury done to the child was less, for it was incapable of the kind of
suffering which might be undergone by the adult victim of murder.
ii. The less of its family was less great
iii. The crime child did not create the sense of insecurity in the society which
other murders cause.
iv. The heinousness of the crime was less, the motive very frequently being the
concealment of the shame of the birth of an illegitimate child. section (194) of
the Penal Code Act Cap 128 provides that any person who, when a woman is
delivered of a child, endeavors by any secret disposition of the dead body of
the child to conceal the birth, whether the child died before, or after its birth,
commits a misdemeanor.
v. Where the killing is done by the mother, her responsibility may be reduced by
the disturbance of her mind caused by the stress of the birth.
NOTE The killing of an infant by persons other than the mother, or by the
mother if the balance of mind is not disturbed remains murder.
INGRIDIENTS
The ingredients of the offence of infanticides are established in the definition of
infanticide under section [196] of the penal code act cap 128,also, they were
established in the case of R v Gore (2007) EWCA crim 3034. In this case Nicola Gore
killed her child (son) of 6-weeks old and was charged with murder however the
defense argued that Gore was suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis
at the time of the offence and these conditions had affected her balance of mind , the
trial judge directed the jury to consider the defense of infanticide which is a specific
offence that applies to mothers who kill their children while suffering from a
disturbed mental state caused by child birth or lactation ,Gore was then convicted of
infanticide rather than murder.
The ingredients that were established include
The victim must be child under the age of 12 months. The offence of
infanticide only applies to a child under the age of twelve months for example
in the case of Uganda v Nalwanga (1967) where the defendant killed a 3-day old
child after the birth and was convicted of infanticide not murder.
The accused must be the mother of the child. Infanticide is a specific
offence that applies only to mothers who kill their children for example in the
case of R v Namayanja 1960, where the defendant gave birth out of wedlock
and in her community giving birth out of wedlock was considered shameful,
she killed the baby and the prosecution proved that Namayanja was indeed the
mother of the child.
The defendant must have caused the death of the child: this ingredient
requires that the defendant’s actions must have caused the death of the child
like in the case of R V Patel 2004 EWCA Crim 3282 the court held that the
defendant’s failure to provide medical attention to her child which resulted into
the child’s death, constituted a causative act.
The defendants balance of mind was disturbed by a reason of her not having
fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child or by the reason of
the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of a child. This ingredient
requires that the defendants mental state must have been affected by the
physical and emotional stresses of child birth or lactation as in the case of R v
Sullivan (1984) AC 156, the court held that the defendants mental state was
disturbed due to the effects of child birth, which contributed to the child’s
death.
The disturbance of mind must have contributed to the causing of child’s death.
This must have played a significant role, as in the case of R V
Dietschman(2003)UKHL, illustrates this ingredient court held that the
defendants mental state which was disturbed due to the effects of child birth,
contributed to the child’s death.
POSSIBLE DEFENCES FOR THE OFFENCE OF INFANTCIDES
Insanity;
Section (11) of the penal code act cap 128 provides that: A person is
not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing
the act or making the omission he or she is through any disease
affecting his or her mind incapable of understanding what he or she is
doing or of knowing that he or she ought not to do the act or make the
omission ;but a person may be criminally responsible for an act or
omission ,although his or her mind is affected by disease, if that
disease does not in fact produce upon his or her mind one or other of
the effects mentioned in this section in reference to that act or
omission.
Diminished responsibility.
Section (177) of the Penal Code Act Cap 128 provides that ;where a
person is found guilty of the murder or of being a party to the murder of
another, and the court is satisfied that that person was suffering from
such abnormality of mind ,or any inherent causes or induced by disease
or injury, has substantially impaired his or her mental responsibility for
this his or her acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the
murder, the court shall make a special finding to the effect that the
accused person was guilty of murder but with diminished responsibility.
Automatism.
This defense may be available if the defendant can show that
they were acting automatically without conscious intent of the time of
killing. According to Black’s law dictionary, Automatism is defined as
action or conduct, occurring without will, purpose, or reasoned
intention such as sleep walking (behavior carried out in a state of
unconsciousness or mental dissociation without full awareness.
QN 2
SUICIDE PACTS
Section 178 of the penal code act cap 128 defines suicide pacts as a common
agreement between two or more persons having for its object of death of all of them,
whether or not each is to take his or her own life but nothing done by a person who
enters into a suicide pacts shall be treated as done by him or her in pursuance of the
pacts unless it is don while he or she has the settled intention of dying in pursuance
of the pact . section 4 (3) of the homicide act.
According to the book of smith and Hogan 2nd edition page 239.
The survivor of such a pact may however have either himself killed the
deceased or have procured a third party to do it.
According to homicide act 1957 54(1) and section 178 (1) of the Penal Code Act Cap
128, it shall not be manslaughter and shall not be murder for a person acting in
pursuance of suicide pact between him or her and another to kill the other or be a
party to the other killing himself or herself or being killed by a third person.
Section (192) of the penal code act cap 128 provides that any person who;
Procures another to kill himself or herself
Counsels another to kill himself or herself and thereby induces him or
her to do so, or.
Aids another in killing himself or herself, commits a felony and is liable
on conviction to imprisonment for life.
For example in the case of Attorney General v Able (1984) ALL ER 277, This case
involved Able and another person who were in a romantic relationship, they entered
into a suicide pact where they agreed to take their own lives together, Able survived
and was charged with aiding and abetting suicide which is an offence under
section192 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128 and the courts decision was based on the
fact that Able had actively encouraged and assisted the other person in taking their
own life and had also intended to take his own life as part of the act.
NOTE: Defendant and the plaintiff agree to kill themselves and D alone survives, it
appears that he will be liable under the homicide act if he turned on the top and under
the suicide act if P did.
Ingredients of suicide pacts
Basing on the Penal Code Act Cap 128 the ingredients are established in the
definition under section 178(3) as;
1. Mutual / common agreement. There must be a mutual agreement between two or
more people to take their own lives together. This agreement can be explicit or
implicit but it must be clear that all parties involved have agreed to end their lives
together. For example, in the case of Rev.Fr Paul Kabishanga and others (1978) the
court found out that the accused persons had mutually agreed to take their own lives
together.
2. Intention to die /object to death of all of them. parties must have a genuine desire
to end their own life rather than simply going through the emotions or pretending to
agree to the pact. for example, in the case of R v Hough (1975). the case involved the
defendant who had aided the other to commit suicide. The court found that the
defendant had intended to help the other person die, and there if aided and abetted
suicide.
3. Common purpose to take off their life. they must be working together towards the
same goal to take their life rather than pursuing separate/conflicting objectives like in
the case of Attorney General v Able 1984 .the court found that the defendant and the
other person had a common purpose to commit suicide, and had there fore entered
into a suicide pact.
4. Mental capacity. Each party to pact must have the mental capacity too understand
the nature and consequences of their actions. They must not be suffering from any
mental disorder or defect that would impair their judgement. As in the case of R v
Bourne (1952) the court found that the other person had lacked the mental capacity
to understand the nature and consequences of their actions and had therefore not
been capable of entering into a suicide pact.
POSSIBLE DEFENCES FOR THE OFFENCE OF SUICIDE PACTS.
1. Duress. If one party was forced to enter into the pact due to threats or violence,
they may not be held criminally liable.
2. Insanity. The defendant can show that they were suffering from mental disorder
that rendered them incapable of understanding the nature and quality of their action.
Section [11] of the penal code act cap 128 provides that a person a person is not
criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making
the omission he or she is through the disease affecting his or her mind incapable of
understanding what he or she is doing.
3. Diminished responsibility. The defendant can show that their ability to form a
rational judgment. section [177] of the penal code act cap 128 provides that where a
person is found guilty of murder or being a party to murder of a another and the court
is satisfied that the person was suffering from such abnormality of mind ,whether
arising from condition or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or
induced by disease or injury as substantially impaired his or her mental
responsibility for his or her acts and omissions in doing or being a party to murder,
the court shall make a special finding to the effect that the accused person was guilty
of murder but with diminished responsibility.
4.Automatism; According to black’s law dictionary, Automatism is defined as the
action or conduct occurring without will, purpose or reasoned intention such as
sleep walking [behavior carried out in a state of unconscious ].Therefore the
defendant can show that they were acting automatically without conscious intent at
the time of killing.
END
