LOKE V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1-13

LOKE V. THE STATE

1

LOKE V. THE STATE

5

PETER JONNY LOKE

APPELLANT

V

10

THE STATE

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 85/1984

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,

J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,

15

COKER,

KAWU,

OPUTA,

4th January, 1985

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

20

Criminal Law and Procedure - Insanity - Misdirection - Failure of trial Judge to

consider accused history of mental illness - Totality of evidence indicative of

insanity - Conviction of murder substituted with verdict of not guilty by

reason of insanity.

25

ISSUES:

1.

What is the onus of proof on a defendant who seeks to rely on a defence of

insanity to a murder charge?

2.

What is the duty of a trial Judge with regard to evidence put forward in support

of a defence of insanity?

30

FACTS:

The accused for no apparent reason cut off the head of the deceased with a

matchet. He was charged to court for murder. Evidence was given to the effect

that prior to the murder of the deceased, the accused had been mentally ill and

had to be chained for some time. The trial Judge after hearing the evidence, held

35





that the appellant had not proved that he was of unsound mind, convicted him and

sentenced him to death. The appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the

Court of Appeal. The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court,

HELD:

1.

A defendant who seeks to rely on a defence of insanity in a murder charge has

40





to prove on the balance of probabilities, that he was suffering from an

abnormality of the mind of the kind contemplated under section 28 of the

Criminal Code, that is, at the time of killing, the abnormality of the mind in

question, substantially impaired this mental responsibility.

2.

The court must consider the evidence upon the whole facts, including the

45





motive of the killing, the conduct of the accused before, at the time of and after

it, and any history of mental abnormality, when dealing with a defence of

insanity. If there is unchallenged evidence that there is abnormality of mind and

consequent impairment of mental responsibility, and no facts or circumstances

appear that can displace that evidence, the court must consider this as a material

50

factor.

3.

That the totality of the evidence was indicative of insanity on the part of the

accused and as such the appellant is not guilty of the offence of murder by

reason of insanity.