OKEKE V. THE STATE

• Pages: 278-282

OKEKE V. THE STATE



278

spondent shall pay the costs of the appeal in this Court fixed at 120 guineas and

in the court below at 128 guineas.

Appeal allowed.

OKEKE V. THE STATE

PATRICK OKEKE



APPELLANT

V

THE STATE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 33/1969

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



Ag.C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

4th July, 1969.

Criminal Law - Intoxication by cigarette probably Indian Hemp - S.52 Penal

Code - D.P.P. v. Beard (1920) A.C. 479 and R v. Owarey (1939) 5 WA. CA.

66 not applicable - Accused knew cigarette was intoxicant so not administered

without his knowledge or against his will.

25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether intoxication is available as a defence under the Penal Code, to

someone who willingly administers the intoxicant to himself.

2.

Whether it is necessary for an accused relying on S.52 of the Penal Code, to

prove that he did not know the effect that the substance he took would have on



30

him.

FACTS:

The accused had attacked some people and a person died. He was charged

with culpable homicide punishable with death under S.221 of the Penal Code. His

defence was that he was given a cigarette to smoke to pop him up and that after



35

smoking it he became intoxicated and had no memory of what happened. He was

convicted. He appealed.

HELD:

1.

The decision in

D.P.P.

v. Beard

is easily distinguishable from the provisions

of sections 44 and 52 of the Penal Code where intoxication is a defence only



40

if the state of intoxication is caused by something administered to the accused

without his knowledge or against his will. The decision in

Beard's

case is

therefore of no avail to a person who commits an offence under the Penal Code

even if that person is so intoxicated that he was incapable of forming the

necessary intent.



45

2.

For the Appellant to come within the protection of section 52 of the Penal Code,

he must establish to the satisfaction of the court that the cigarette was given to

him without his knowing what effect it could produce or was likely to produce

after smoking it. This he failed to do. On his own admission he knew that the

cigarette would make him happier than beer. If, as he must have known also,



50

beer could intoxicate, he must be deemed to know that the cigarette would

probably intoxicate him more.

5

10

15

20