WILLIE V. THE STATE

• Pages: 109-112

WILLIE V. THE STATE



109

WILLIE V. THE STATE

5

RICHARD WILLIE



APPELLANT

V

10 THE STATE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 380/67

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

15



MADAR I KAN,



J.S.C.

11th April, 1968.

Crinzinal Law - Homicide - Defence of Insanity - To avail himself of defence of

insanity under s.26 of the Criminal Code - Not sufficient for Accused to

20





establish

mental abnormality at the time of trial - Accused must go further

to show that at time of doing the act complained of he was insane within

the meaning of s.26 of the Criminal Code.

ISSUE:

25





1. To avail himself of the defence of insanity under s.26 of the Criminal Code, is

it sufficient for a defendant to establish mental abnormality at the time of his trial

only.

FACTS:

The appellant who was labouring under the impression that the deceased had

30





poisoned him by witchcraft, demanded from the deceased an explanation for the

resultant stomach ache. The deceased did not reply; thereupon the appellant

stabbed her with a knife, assaulted her with a stool and also stoned her. He dealt

the fatal blow on her head with a heavy grinding stone. The appellant was con-

victed in the High Court, VVarri of murder and sentenced to death. On appeal he

35





argued that he did not have a fair trial in that the trial judge failed to give any or

sufficient consideration to the expert opinion that his mental state was abnormal,

and that the judge erred by finding that there was no evidence that the appellant

was insane at the time he killed the deceased.

HELD:

40





1. To avail himself of the defence of insanity under section 26 of the Criminal Code

it was not sufficient for the appellant to establish that he was mentally abnormal

at the time of his trial; he must go further to show that at the time of doing the

act complained of he was insane within the meaning of section 26. In the present

case, the offence was committed on the 13th November, 1966 and there was

45





nothing in the evidence of Dr. Stephenson to suggest that the appellant, on

whom the onus of proof lay, was insane on that date.

2. The question was not what the appellant knew on the 17th October, 1967, but

whether his capacity of knowledge was impaired by mental disease or natural

mental infirmity on the 13th November, 1966. On the evidence before the lower

50





court the judge rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to

establish the defence of insanity.

[As to

Defence of insanity generally,

see 11 HALSBURY'S LAWS 7th Edition

27 para. 30.]