REGINA vs. GRUNSHIE [1959]DLCA2054

Date	1959-03-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA2054

KORSAH C.J.

VAN LARE J.A.

ACOLATSE J.

[1959]DLCA2054
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">REGINA<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">GRUNSHIE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 125<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
13TH MARCH, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A. AND ACOLATSE
J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE J.A.<o:p></o:p>At the
close of the arguments on the 27th February last, we allowed this appeal. We
now give our reasons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant was convicted by Murphy J., sitting with assessors at Assizes holden
at Kumasi, of the offence of manslaughter, and was sentenced to eighteen months
imprisonment with hard labour. At the trial, the sole defence set up by the
appellant was that, in inflicting the wounds that caused the death of the
deceased, he acted in self-defence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Each of
the three assessors accepted the defence and expressed the opinion that the
prisoner was not guilty. The learned trial-Judge, however, did not conform with
the opinion of the assessors, as he was of the opinion that the appellant’s
“actions were a form of revenge, and went a great deal farther than was necessary
in self-defence, having regard to the fact that the deceased was on the ground,
and to the number of wounds inflicted.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As
opposed to provocation (which is a plea in mitigation) self-defence is a plea
of justification, implying that the prisoner is presumed to intend the
consequences, even to the extent of causing death in order to save himself from
being murdered by the deceased. It is our opinion that the question of revenge,
or a consideration of the degree or quantum of force used, cannot arise where
the facts (as in this case) come within the provisions, of section 63(4) of the
Criminal Code as to self-defence. Under those provisions there is no limit to
the force or harm that may be used in necessary self-defence against murder,
though under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of that section there is a limit in
each case to the force that may be used, or harm inflicted, in self-defence in
the instances enumerated. The learned trial-Judge appears to have misdirected
himself in applying to this case the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and
(3), instead of those of sub-section 4.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(His
lordship read the subsection, and proceeded):- In any case, the question that
had to be decided was whether the act done was in necessary self-defence, and
not whether it went farther than was necessary in self-defence. Homicide is
justifiable as soon as the act done is found to be in necessary self-defence.
In the present case, it does appear to us that the learned Judge had no doubt
that the act was in fact done in a case of extreme necessity, and in necessary
self-defence.<o:p></o:p>As the
whole appeal is concerned with a question of law, it is unnecessary to state
the facts in any details. It is sufficient to say that the deceased went armed
to the appellant’s house to commit murder. The learned trial-Judge found as
follows: “It was clear from the evidence of the preliminary events that the
accused had ample reason to fear being killed or seriously wounded by the
deceased, both because of the deceased’s previous actions against others, and
because of the manner in which the deceased was armed, and his actions when he
went to the accused’s house,” where the alleged offence took place.<o:p></o:p>