REGINA vs. OJOJO [1959]DLCA2055

Date	1959-05-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA2055

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J

ACOLATSE J.

OLLENNU J.

[1959]DLCA2055
																																						<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><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">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">OJOJO<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 207<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:
1ST MAY, 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE AG. C.J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant was convicted on the 11th December, 1958 before Bossman J., sitting
with a jury at the Assizes holden at Cape Coast, upon a charge of murder. He
has appealed to this Court against his conviction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:-)<o:p></o:p>The notes
of the Judge’s summing-up attracted our attention, and we granted leave to
appeal. When the appeal came on for hearing we asked learned Crown Counsel for
the respondent whether he could be of any assistance to the Court even before
hearing counsel for the appellant. He readily agreed, and conceded (properly,
in our view) that the Judge’s summing-up fell so far short of what the law
required that he could not support the conviction. We are of the opinion that
although the learned Judge took meticulous care in his summing-up in explaining
the law of murder to the jury, and also in recapitulating the evidence for the
prosecution, he unfortunately misdirected himself, both by actual misdirection
and by non-direction, as to the requirements of the law in regard to the
defence. We considered that the passages in the summing-up to which reference
will be made in this judgment were so gravely at fault as to amount to a
substantial misdirection on a point of law, which made allowing the appeal
inevitable.<o:p></o:p>Crown
Counsel raised the following points:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“That the
learned trial-Judge did not appear to have considered the defences of
provocation and self-defence: He completely omitted to direct the jury on the
defence which was raised or on that which ought to have been considered. From
his summing-up the trial-Judge appeared to have usurped the functions of the
jury, and directed them to return a verdict of guilty without leaving it to
them . In my view of the evidence as a whole it would be a matter of conjecture
what verdict the jury might have returned even on a proper summing-up. It is
clearly a case in which the proviso to section 10(1) of the Court of Appeal
Ordinance, 1957 could not apply.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>With all
these submissions we agreed.<o:p></o:p>The
learned Judge in his summing-up treated the statement of the appellant as
amounting to a confession.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship read the second of the three paragraphs appearing in the headnote as
from the Judge’s summing-up, and proceeded.--)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We do not
think that the appellant’s statement amounts to a c</main>