Application Of The "doctrine Of Last Seen" In Homicide Trials In Nigeria Criminal Justice System

1.5 Significance of the Research  

This research will be useful source of material to legislators, executives, the judiciary, lawyers, student engaging in related studies and the general public

1.6 Research Methodology  

The research methodologies adopted for this material guide are doctrinal and empirical research methodology.  Doctrinal method means “theorizing without considering the practical consequences. It is called a visualized research, imaginative research,   unpractical research, a visionary research or conceptual research.  

1.7 Literature Review  

It is becoming the practice to divide offences into conduct and result offences. Conduct crimes are those where only the forbidden conduct needs to be proved to ground conviction. An example is dangerous driving contrary to Road Traffic Laws . Under such laws, one does not need to show that anything occurred. The accused is guilty if he drove a motor vehicle dangerously on the road. There need not be harmful consequences, such as the accused driving a car on a public road so dangerously that someone was knocked down. Also, in “perjury” cases , the accused is guilty if he makes a statement on Oath, knowing or believing it to be false. The outcome of the case need not be affected. “Perjury”, like dangerous driving, is therefore a “conduct” crime. In result crimes, the act and the forbidden consequences are part of the definition of the actus reus. The prosecution shall prove that the forbidden consequences resulted and/or occurred due to the conduct of the accused. It then follows that, in result offences, what is forbidden is the result and not the conduct of the accused which led to the result. The reverse may apply in respect of conduct crimes. In the offences of murder and manslaughter, someone must be killed. The forbidden results must be caused by the accused. Murder and manslaughter are therefore good examples of “results crimes”. With regard to “conduct” crimes, there is no problem normally with ‘causation’, since no results need be proved. But in result crimes, the accused must be proved to have caused the prohibited consequence. The various tests applied by the courts in determining the causal link between the conduct of the accused and the forbidden result remain problematic and inconsistent. They are not the focus of this paper4   

In a charge of murder or manslaughter, as the case may be, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the following ingredients; (a) that the deceased, a human being had died, (b) that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused, and (c) that the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.  The burden of proof placed on the prosecution in a charge of murder is not discharged unless the prosecution establishes not only the cause of death but also that the act or event which caused the death of the deceased, emanated from the accused.  Our main focus here, is ingredient (b) which demands that he prosecution must prove that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused and which puts on the front burner, the legal concept of causation in result offences. 

?