REX V. OKRIYI IGIRI

Blackall, P. When the Court allowed this appeal on 5th November, 1948 and substituted a verdict of manslaughter for murder, it intimated that reasons would be given later.

The evidence for the defence (which was uncontradicted) was thus summed up by the trial Judge:-

“The accused elected to make a statement on oath and stated that he killed his wife because she taunted him with incompetence and then insulted him by spitting on his face. This he considered a deadly insult. He said that he was so angry that he lost his control and shot her with a gun that happened to be there, loaded in preparation for a hunting expedition. I therefore find Okeiyi Igiri guilty of murder as charged.”

It is apparent from this non sequitur that the learned Judge did not direct himself as to whether there was evidence of such provocation as might reduce the crime to manslaughter. This he should have done. In jury cases there should be a direction as to manslaughter when the evidence is such as might satisfy the jury that elements are present which would reduce the crime to manslaughter or induce a reasonable doubt on this question (Mancini v. D.P.P. (1) ), and a Judge trying a case without a jury should likewise take into consideration any such evidence. The Judge should have considered the question of provocation, for words of provocation, coupled with such an act as spitting upon the appellant may (though they need not necessarily) have the effect of reducing the crime from murder to manslaughter (R. v. Mason (2)). Whether the act of spitting would have this result depends upon the effect such an act would be expected to have upon a reasonable man of the appellant’s station in life (Rex v. James Adekanmi (3)). In primitive communities where the subjection of women is accepted as natural and proper, such an insult from a wife arouses more passion than in more sophisticated societies. The appellant's action in addressing the , people in Court when the sentence was passed indicated that he felt confident that his neighbours shared his sentiments in this respect, but although the learned Judge recorded that the appellant” clearly protests that such an insult was so provoking that any man would be likely to lose his self-control it did not apparently occur to him that there might be something in the appellant’s plea.

Appeal allowed and conviction for manslaughter substituted.