The Court of Appeal has ruled that a drunk witness can still give reliable evidence in a criminal case.

🇰🇪 Breaking It Down

The decision followed an appeal by a man convicted of murder after a birthday celebration at a Machakos club ended in a fatal assault. The High Court had sentenced him and his co-accused to 25 years in prison.

The appellant argued that the eyewitnesses had been drinking, raising concerns over their perception and memory. He also maintained that the incident was a spontaneous drunken fight and that the prosecution had failed to prove malice aforethought.

Four prosecution witnesses admitted consuming alcohol before and during the incident.

📌 What You Need to Know

However, the Court of Appeal found no evidence that they were so intoxicated that they could not understand what was happening.

The judges found that the witnesses gave coherent and consistent accounts of the assault , with their evidence broadly corroborating one another. They had also spent considerable time at the club and were familiar with the appellant, who was known to them.

The court also noted that the club was well lit and that the witnesses had enough time to observe the incident. Their familiarity with the appellant further strengthened their ability to identify him.

The appellate court therefore rejected the argument that consuming alcohol automatically made the witnesses’ evidence unreliable.

It held that intoxication is a factor to consider when assessing the weight of testimony, rather than a reason to disregard it.

The judges said the reliability of such evidence depends on factors including lighting, the time available to observe the events, proximity, familiarity with the person identified, and consistency of the account.

📰 Source: Kenyans.co.ke