Ted Kayode Adams V Director Of Public Prosecutions Of The Federation (1966)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BAIRAMIAN, J.S.C.

The appellant was tried in the High Court of Lagos on a complaint (put briefly) that on the 8th June, 1965 at the University of Lagos, Surulere, with intent unlawfully to kill Dr Saburi Biobaku, he stabbed him with a sharp knife, an act likely to endanger human life, contrary to section 320(2) of the Criminal Code. In addressing the jury learned counsel for the appellant, then the defendant on trial, asked the jury to find that the defendant acted under uncontrollable impulse and spoke to them on the burden and degree of proof of insanity; in his summing up Omululu, J. directed the jury inter alia on the defence of insanity; and the jury returned a unanimous verdict that-

‘the accused committed the act but at the time of the commission he was suffering from some uncontrollable impulse.’

Below that the learned judges note is as follows:

‘Court: The order of the court shall be that Ted Kayode Adams be detained in the Yaba Mental Asylum. I shall forward a report to the President for his order under section 230(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.’

His solicitor, Mr Onyeabo C. Obi, who was counsel for the defence at the trial, gave notice of appeal on the defendants behalf, on the following grounds:

‘1. That the learned Special Assize judge erred in law in not formally entering a finding of not guilty for the defendant following the verdict of the jury.

2. That the learned Special Assize judge erred in law in not formally acquitting and discharging the defendant following the verdict of the jury.

3. That the learned Special Assize judge erred in law in ordering the defendant to be detained at the Yaba Asylum and making a report to His Excellency the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under section 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 43, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos,1958 Edition, following the verdict of the jury.’

Mr Obi argued the appeal, and Mr Candido Johnson appeared for the respondent but was not called upon; the hearing took place on December 1.6th. Both the learned counsel agreed that the verdict of the jury was that the defendant did the act but was not criminally responsible within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Code, which provides that-

’28. A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.’ (The second paragraph relates to delusions and is not relevant in this case). The words ‘A person is not criminally responsible’ import that he is not guilty of the offence charged and must be acquitted; and the appeal was argued on the basis of the defendant having been acquitted. Mr Obi argued that he, having been acquitted, ought to have been discharged in accordance with section 62 of the Jury Act (cap. 90 in the 1958 Laws of the Federation), which provides that-

’62. If the jury find the accused person not guilty he shall be immediately discharged from custody on that.indictment.’

That is similar to section 246 of the Criminal Procedure Act (cap. 43), which provides that-

“246. If the court finds the accused not guilty the accused shall forthwith be discharged and an order of acquittal recorded.’