Offences and Case Law
| Author | A Borough |
| Published date | 01 October 1953 |
| Date | 01 October 1953 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X5302600411 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
OFFENCES
AND
CASE LAW
311
men a free pardon for the assistance they had given to the Police.
Thirty-two of the accused persons charged with the attack were con-
victed and sentenced to terms of two to three years' hard labour.
Twenty-three persons were convicted for their
part
in the ceremony
on 23rd September receiving sentences of three years'
hard
labour
and five years reporting orders upon release with the exception of
one, Wambugu Buruga, who received five years' hard labour with a
five years' reporting order. In addition, fifty-eight persons were con-
victed of being members of the unlawful Society,
Mau
Mau,
and
received sentences of one year's hard labour.
This was the first large-scale attack on European property launched
by the subversive
Mau Mau
Society
and
was the first time
that
this
organisation
had
come to the surface in the Nanyuki district, although
it had been known
that
it was working underground for many months
before this occurred.
The extent to which this
Mau Mau
oath
had
bound
some of the
Africans concerned in this attack can be judged by the fact
that
whilst
Inspector Oddie
and
Inspector Katiko, along with Corporal
M'Mugambi, were searching the house
of
one Kanyi, arrested and
known to be one
of
the leaders in this gang, he picked up a panga
hidden behind a pile
of
firewood and made amurderous attack on
Inspector Oddie who, acting promptly and coolly, shot him dead.
The intelligent
and
painstaking investigation carried
out
by Inspector
Oddie, Assistant Inspector Davies, Assistant Inspector Katiko
Mumo
and Corporal M'Mugambi leading the African detectives was highly
commended by Kenya's Commissioner of Police following the suc-
cessful completion of this trial.
Offences and Case Law
By A
BOROUGH
CHIEF
CLERK
XIV.-DuTY
TO
STOP
IN
CASE
OF
ACCIDENT:
ROAD
TRAFFIC
ACT,
1930 s. 22
I. If in any case, owing to the presence of a
motor
vehicle on a
road, an accident occurs whereby damage or injury is caused to any
person, vehicle or animal, the driver
of
the
motor
vehicle shall stop
and, if required so to do by any person having reasonable grounds
for so requiring, give his name and address, and also the name
and
address of the owner
and
the identification marks
of
the vehicle.
2.
If
in the case
of
any such accident as aforesaid the driver
of
the
motor
vehicle for any reason does not give his name and address to
312 THE POLICE JOURNAL
any such person as aforesaid he shall report the accident at a police
station or to a police constable as soon as reasonably practicable,
and
in any case within twenty-four hours
of
the occurrence thereof.
"Any
person, vehicle, or
animal'
Whether a bicycle is a "vehicle" or not was considered in the case
of
Ellis v. Nott-Bower (1896) 13 T.L.R. 35 where a cyclist was con-
victed by the Justices under section 12 of the Liverpool
Corporation
Act, 1889
of
using a vehicle for the purpose of displaying advertise-
ments without the consent of the corporation.
It
was urged for the
defence
that
the dictionary defined a bicycle as a machine for riding,
and
that
it was more like a horse
than
a vehicle,
but
on appeal
Grant-
ham
J. said:
"The
decision
of
the justices in this case was quite right.
The word 'vehicle' is a very wide word, so wide indeed,
that
it has
acquired asecondary meaning under which, in medicine, beeswax is
described as a vehicle,
and
in painting, artists describe
other
substances
as vehicles. People even talk
of
anewspaper as a vehicle
of
corres-
pondence. But, in this case, it is enough to say tha t the primary
meaning is quite applicable to decide the point. Primarily a vehicle
includes any means of conveyance,
and
this bicycle carried
both
its
rider and the advertisements,
and
the appeal must therefore be dis-
missed with costs."
were
that
a vehicle skidded at a corner
and
hit a stone wall,
and
that
by reason of the accident the wall and the vehicle were damaged.
The driver did not give his name and address to anyone,
nor
did he
report the accident to the police.
The prosecution contended
that
damage had been caused to a
certain person, namely, the owner
of
the property, his wall having
been damaged by reason of the accident
and
that
the defendant,
not having given his name
and
address and not having reported the
accident
had
committed an offence under section 22.
On behalf
of
the defendant it was argued
that
damage to the wall
was
not
damage or injury to any person, vehicle or animal within the
meaning of the section 22; and the justices, being
of
opinion
that
the
contention of the defendant was right in law, dismissed the information.
The prosecution appealed and in delivering the judgment
of
the
Divisional Court, Lord Hewart, C. J. said
"that
it
had
been ingeniously
suggested
that
the words
'any
person, vehicle or animal' ought to be
read as if they had been written,
'any
person, property, vehicle or
animal'. If, however, the Legislative had intended to include property,
To continue reading
Request your trial