Joyce Namugambe
Court of appeal has over turned the 25 years jail sentence of murder to the kawempe couple after the conviction was based on the evidence of the police sniffer dog, which the couple say was unfair to them.
Acouple of Jonathan Mazuku and Justine Mpamulungi in St Francis zone Kawempe division, was arrested in 2017 after the area defence secretary discovered abody of one identified as Jennifer Namuwonge at a rubbish pit near the couple’s residence and the Lc1 chairman Charles Kazibwe called the officer in charge of Bwaise police station who rushed to the scene and got the couple arrested.
Immediately after, the Oc station Kawempe division ASP Agnes Aanyu with other police officers deployed a police dog to truck the scent of the suspects which led them to the couple’s house where police recovered a stained skirt and apair of closed shoes, although the forensic analysis at the goverment analytical laboratory revealed that the soil samples and the blood stains were not in any way linked to the crime scene.
Despite the fact that the samples did not connect to the crime scene, the court trial judge convicted the couple based on the evidence of the dog No. 70 Neva German Shepherd and the qualifications of its manager.
In 2020, the couple appealed against the conviction and subsequent sentence on grounds that it was harsh and excessive. They arged that they were convincted on uncorroborated circumstantial evidence after the findings indicated that the sample didnot match the crime scene.
A three-member panel comprising Deputy Chief Justice Richard Buteera, Christopher Gashirabake, and Oscar Kihika, found that the High Court trial judge, Anthony Oyuko OJok erred relying solely on the cicumstantial evidence without any other corroborated evidence.
The Court of Appeal justices note that there are specific principles that should be considered before relying on canine evidence, including proving the reputation, skill, and training of the dog’s handler, demonstrating the circumstances of the tracking, and ensuring that the evidence is treated with care and explained thoroughly.
