CRIMINAL LIABILITY

COURSE WORK II
PRESENTATION
GROUP MEMBERS
LOUISE
TRUST
J USTINE
MARY
QUESTION
 Mwiine’s customarily married wife Kate Kanuunu leaves him for Mwesigwa Mark.
Mwiine is extremely angry at Mwesigwa Mark and wants to confront him. He goes to
Mwesigwa house to tell him how he feels. When Mwiine arrives at Mwesigwa’s
house, he calls his number but there is no response. Mwiine believes that Mwesigwa
is avoiding him and is in the house, since the lights are on. On finding the door to be
locked, Mwiine walked around the house and pushed a half-opened window and it
further opens so that he can climb through. Mwiine discovers that Mwesigwa is not
home but he enters the house and goes to Mwesigwa’s bedroom. He finds there a
love letter from Kate Kanuunu to Mwesigwa which he finds next to the bed. He picks
the love letter and a laptop and exits the house through the front door. He sets the
love letter ablaze and watches it burn. He then throws the smoldering ashes of the
letter through the window of Mwesigwa’s house. Although the ashes continue to
smoke for a while, there are no longer flames and nothing is set alight in Mwesigwa’s
house. Mwiine then leaves Mwesigwa’s house at 5pm and he went to his usual
drinking joint, where he drank his favourite gin in a group comprising six men and a
woman called Harriet whom he was in a relationship with despite his marriage to
Kanuunu. Harriet is aged 28 and she was too drunk to walk back home alone, so
Mwiine decided to escort her. The next day which was a Sunday, Harriet reported to
the police that Mwiine had forceful sexual intercourse with her and beat her up.
 Mwesigwa discovered what Mwiine did and he is furious and reports at the local
police station on Sunday and while there he finds Harriet who had also gone to report
Mwiine for having forceful sexual intercourse with her and beat her up.
 The Police would like to charge Mwiine.
 D iscu ss all th e p o ssib le o ffen ces co m m itted b y Mw iin e an d an y p o ssib le d efen ces.
BRIEF FACTS
 Mwiine’s customary married wife Kate Kanuunu leaves him for
Mwesigwa Mark. Mwiine is extremely angry and therefore
goes to Mark’s house to confront him but finds the door
locked. Since the lights are on, Mwiine thinks Mwesigwa is
around but just wants to avoid him. He walks around the
house, pushes the half- opened window, climbs, enters and
goes to Mwesigwa’s bed room where he finds the love letter
from Kate to Mwesigwa which he picks with a laptop and
exists the house through the front door. He then sets the letter
ablaze and throws the smoking ashes through the window of
Mark’s house. He leaves mark’s house at 5pm and goes to
drink where he finds 28 year old Harriet whom he was in
relationship with despite his marriage to Kannunu. Harriet was
to drunk to walk back home alone, so Mwiine decided to
escort her. The next day Harriet reported to the police that
Mwiine had raped and beaten her up. Having discovered what
Mwiine did, Mwesigwa is furious and reports to the police
where he finds Harriet who had also gone to report Mwiine for
ISSUES
 Whether by Mwiine entering Mwesigwa’s house without
permission is liable for the offence of criminal trespass.
 Whether by Mwiine breaking and entering Mwesigwa’s
house is liable for the offence of house breaking.
 Whether by Mwiine entering the bedroom and picking the
laptop from Mwesigwa’s bed is liable for the offence of
theft.
 Whether by Mwiine having forceful sexual intercourse
with Harriet is liable for the offence of indecent assault.
 Whether by Mwiine beating up Harriet is liable for the
offence of common assault.
 Whether by Mwiine entering Mwesigwa’s house and
picking the laptop from Mwesigwa’s bed can use the
defence of provocation.
 Whether by Mwiine, having forceful sexual intercourse
LAW APPLICABLE
 The 1995 Uganda Constitution as amended.
 Penal Code Act Cap 120 of Laws of Uganda as
amended.
Case Law.
RESOLUTIONS
 ISSUE . 1 .
 Wh eth er b y Mw iin e en terin g Mw esig w a’s h o u se w ith o u t p erm issio n is
liab le fo r th e o ffen ce o f crim in al tresp ass.

 In the Penal Code Act Cap 120 of Laws of Uganda as amended. Section 302.
Crim in al tresp ass is defined as
 Any person who—
 (a) ;enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to
commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person; or
(b) ;having lawfully entered into or upon such property remains there with
intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any person or with intent to
commit any offence, commits the misdemeanour termed criminal trespass
and is liable to imprisonment for one year
 In the case of Katusiime V Uganda criminal appeal 10 of 2013 further
explained criminal trespass as an offence that involves entering upon
property or land in possession of another, with the intent to commit an
offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any other person. Mwiine is liable
for the offence of criminal trespass having gotten into Mwesigwa’s
premises, entered into his house with intent to intimidate or annoy him as
 ISSUE 2
Wh eth er b y Mw iin e b reakin g an d en terin g Mw esig w a’s h o u se is liab le fo r th e o ffen ce o f
h o u se b reakin g .
Housebreaking is defined under section 295 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120 of Laws of
Uganda as amended that states;
A person who breaks any part of a building, whether external or internal, or opens by
unlocking, pulling,
pushing, lifting or any other means any door, window, shutter, cellar flap or other thing,
intended to close
or cover an opening in a building, or an opening giving passage from one part of a
building to another, is
deemed to break the building.
SECTION 295 provides that,
(1)Any person who—
(a) breaks and enters any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling with intent
to commit a
felony in it; or
(b)having entered any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling with intent to
commit a
felony in it, or having committed a felony in any such building, tent or vessel, breaks out
of it,
commits the felony termed housebreaking and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.
(2) If the offence is committed in the night, it is termed burglary, and the offender is liable
ISSUE 2 CONTINUATION
In MasenuB utiti v R , the D istrict Court of Mwanza convicted the
appellant of housebreaking. The evidence established that the
appellant broke a garage door but ran away before any entry was
made into the garage. On revision, it was held that the essential
ingredients of housebreaking are:-
(a) breaking and entering,
(b) into a building,
(c) the commission of a felony therein. That here there was no entry,
so that the conviction was wrong.
However, Mwiine is liable for the offence of housebreaking
because the facts disclose the above ingredients that is he
pushed a half-opened window and it further opened and he
climbed through and entered Mwesigwa’s house. …..You did
not include what l asked you to include about the specific
provision which caters for the breaking and or entering.
Pushing a half-opened window would fall under S.294(1)-
ISSUE 3
 Wh eth er b y Mw iin e en terin g th e b ed ro o m an d p ickin g th e lap to p fro m Mw esig w a’s b ed is liab le fo r th e o ffen ce o f
th eft.
Penal Code Act Cap 120 of Laws of Uganda as amended; section254 provides for the definition of theft as fo llo w s;
 (1) ; A person who fraudulently and without claim of right takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently
converts to the use of any person other than the general or special owner thereof anything capable of being stolen,
is said to steal that thing.
 Sub Sec (2),
 A person who takes or converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do so fraudulently if he or
 she does so with any of the following intents—
 (a)an intent permanently to deprive the general or special owner of the thing of it;
 (b)an intent to use the thing as a pledge or security;
 (c)an intent to part with it on a condition as to its return which the person taking or converting it may
 be unable to perform;
 (d)an intent to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be returned in the condition in which it
 was at the time of the taking or conversion;
 Therefore, in relation to subsection 6, a person is deemed to have taken a thing if he moves it or causes it to move.

 Sec 253 provides for the things capable of being stolen.

 (1)Every inanimate thing, which is the property of any person and which is movable, is capable of being stolen.
 (2)Every inanimate thing which is the property of any person and which is capable of being made movable is
capable of being stolen as soon as it becomes movable, although it is made movable in order to steal it.
ISSUE 3 CONTINUATION
 The ingredients of theft include, fraudulent intent sec 254(2) , claim of right
254(a), taking or exportation sec 254(2), a thing must be capable of being stolen
sec 253, conversion 254(2), As l mentioned on Saturday, you need to specify the
fraudulent intent under S.254(2) and it is paragraph (a); an intent to permanently
deprive the general or special owner of the thing of it. Infact you can define a
special owner at the end of paragraph (e) of S.254 (2) (e).

 In Kifu ko V R ULR 2 7 3 , the accused’s deference was that he did not take the
parcel into he’s possession and was not guilt of theft. However, it was held that
once it is proved that the accused move an article from one place to another with
the intention to deprive the owner from permanently having it, he is guilt of theft.
Also, in Map u n ad a V R 1 9 7 1 East Africa 4 1 3 , the offence of stealing is defined
as to mean the deprivation of possession not ownership. The theft is committed
when one wrongly removes the goods with the necessary intent that is, in this
case, permanently to deprive the owner from it.
 Therefore, Mwiine is liable for theft because he removed the laptop from the
house of Mwesigwa since there was an element of taking which includes
carrying away or any removal of anything from the place which it occupied.
ISSUE 4
 Wh eth er b y H arriet rep o rtin g to th e p o lice th at Mw iin e h ad fo rcefu l sexu al in terco u rse
w ith h er is liab le fo r th e o ffen ce o f Rap e.
 Under section 123 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120 of Laws of Uganda as amended
provides for the definition of rape that;
 Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent,
or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or
intimidation of any kind or by fear of bodily harm, or by means of false representations as
to the nature of the act, or in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband,
commits the felony termed rape.
 124. Punishment for rape
 A person convicted of rape is liable to suffer death
 According to section 123, Mwiine is liable for rape having had unlawful carnal
knowledge of a woman Harriet aged 28 without her consent due to her testimony to the
police that he had forceful sexual intercourse with her.
 In the case of Ug an d a vs. On yu n g o Ro b ert 2 0 1 8 ,the ingredients were as follows carnal
knowledge of a woman ,lack of consent and that it is the accused who had unlawful
carnal knowledge of the victim. We can therefore rely on Harriet’s report to the police to
say that she was raped due to the fact that the ingredients above are exposed in her
report that is, her mentioning the name of Mwiine and being that he is the person who
escorted her, shows that he participated in the crime. Also saying that he had forceful
sexual intercourse with her shows that there was no consent and also that the act was
unlawful.
ISSUE 5
Wh eth er b y Mw iin e b eatin g u p H arriet is liab le fo r th e
o ffen ce o f co m m o n assau lt.
 According to the Penal Code Act Cap 120 of Laws of
Uganda as amended; section 235, it defines common
assault as;
 Any person who unlawfully assaults another commits a
misdemeanour, and, if the assault is not committed in
circumstances for which a greater punishment is provided in
this Code, is liable to imprisonment for one year.
 In the case of Uganda V Gbonga and 2 others, the offence of
common assault is further explained as, if the assault is not
committed in circumstances for which a greater punishment
is provided by the Act, a convict is liable to imprisonment for
one year.
 Therefore, Mwiine is in this case liable for the offence of
common assault and deserves a lesser punishment because
D EFENCE
 Wh eth er b y Mw iin e d rin kin g h is favo rite g in o fferin g an d h avin g fo rcefu l
sexu al in terco u rse w ith H arriet an d b eatin g h er after esco rtin g h er b ack to
h er h o m e can raise a d efen ce o f in to xicatio n .
 The defense of intoxication is provided for under section 12 (2) of the Penal
Code Act Cap 120 of Laws of Uganda as amended states that;
 Intoxication shall be a defence 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 and—
 (a); the state of intoxication was caused without his or her consent by the
malicious or negligent act of another person; or
 (b); the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or
otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.
 In the case of R V Stu b b s (1 9 8 9 ) 8 8 Cr. Ap p R 5 3 , it was stated that the
intoxication needed to be very extreme just like Mwiine was too drunk and
this rendered him unable to judge whether his act of having forceful sexual
D EFFENCE CONTINUATION
 . In R v Po rd ag e,3 2 th e co u rt held that the key question
to be asked was, taking into account the accused's
intoxicated state; did he form the necessary specific
intent? As for the facts before us, we therefore assert
that Mwiine never planned to get drunk in order to effect
his act of beating and having forceful sexual intercourse
with Harriet. He simply went to drink his favorite gin as he
always did, then he decided to escort Harriet who could
not take herself back home. Also, the fact that Mwiine
was already in a relationship with Harriet, he therefore
has no reason of making himself drunk as to effect the
forceful sexual intercourse or beating her up.
CONCLUSION
According to Article 28(3)(a) the 1995
Constitution as amended, any person charged
with a criminal offense is presumed innocent
until proved guilty or until he pleads guilty.

 Therefore, The burden of proof remains in the

hands of the prosecution to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt.