[1974]DLHC2316 • May 28, 1974 • High Court
REPUBLIC vs. BRIGHT
The accused was charged before the District Court Grade I, Keta, with dishonestly receiving stolen goods. He pleaded guilty but provided an explanation that negated or cast doubt on the commission of the crime. The trial magistrate accepted the guilty plea and convicted the accused despite the ambiguous explanation. Subsequently, the magistrate committed the accused to the High Court for sentencing under the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963 (Act 192), based on the accused's extensive criminal record.
read moreThe accused in this case was arraigned before the District Court Grade I, Keta, on a charge of dishonestly receiving. He pleaded guilty to the charge. The accused then gave some explanation which had the effect either expressly or by necessary implication of neutralising or negativing the commission of the crime for which he was charged. Instead of the learned trial magistrate entering a plea of “not guilty” on his behalf as he was in duty bound so to do as the explanation made the plea ambiguous or otherwise inconsistent with the plea of “guilty,” he accepted the plea of guilty” and convicted the accused allegedly on his own plea. Thereafter, on learning of his shocking past, the learned magistrate then committed the accused for sentence to the High Court under sections 1 and 3 of the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963 (Act 192). Under such circumstances what are the duties of the sentencing court? The questions which come to mind are: (i) Whether the magistrate was...