THE DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE: A CLARIFICATION

Abstract

It is a truism that the imposition of criminal liability for doing nothing sounds bizarre. Consequently, all legal system of civilized societies have to a large extent included the simple moral idea that no one should be convicted and punished for a crime unless some measure of subjective fault can be attributed to the person. The criminal law also provides defences for those who cannot be said to be at fault such as the insane, young people, those who acted in a state of unconsciousness or for accidental events. This article tried to clarify section 24 of the Criminal Code Act which deals with acts or omissions which occurs independently of the exercise of the will of the person doing the act or making the omission. The paper demonstrated that Section 24 of the Code has two arms which have the same effect if successfully pleaded. Both arms are independent of the other and should be pleaded alternatively. The article shows that while some courts interpret and apply the section properly others interpret and apply the section wrongly leading to the punishment of an innocent person. It is also observed that the importation of the unlawfulness and lawfulness doctrine is not in accordance with the intendments and spirit of Section 24 of the Code and should be diametrically rejected. The section is commendable as it is in tandem with international best practice in this area of law.