R. vs. JACOB K. MENSAH [1959]DLCA5521

Date	1959-09-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA5521

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J.

GRANVILLE SHARP J.A. AND OLLENNU J.

[1959]DLCA5521
																																						<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" >R.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JACOB
K. MENSAH<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1959]
GLR 314&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;Date: 28TH SEPTEMBER, 1959.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>VAN LARE
J.A. AS C.J., GRANVILLE SHARP J.A. AND OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts of the case, and proceeded:-)<o:p></o:p>There is
no doubt that Mensah misconceived the requirements of the law as to the proper
execution of a Will, but it is clear on the evidence that his sole purpose in
doing what he did was to give effect to the intentions of the testator. We are
unable to discover, or to infer, mens rea.<o:p></o:p>The main
ground of appeal argued is that the learned Judge misdirected himself on the
question of intent. That ground involves three points, viz.,<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">(i) misdirection as to the person
in whom the intent to defraud must be shown;<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">(ii) whether there is any
evidence from which intent to defraud can be inferred, having regard to the findings
of the learned Judge;<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">(iii) whether fraud as defined in
section 18 of the Criminal Code is shown to exist.<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">As to the first point: The
offence of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime is committed by a
person who, knowing what the essential ingredients of a particular crime are,
“directly or indirectly instigates, commands, counsels, procures, solicits, or
in any manner purposely aids another person in the commission of that crime”
(Criminal Code, sec. 46 (1); and see Johnson v. Youden &amp; ors.([1950] 1 K.B.
544).<o:p></o:p>The
essential ingredient of the crime of forging a will, contra sec. 314 (1) of the
Criminal Code, is that the forgery must be made with one or other of the
following intents, namely, “intent to defraud, intent to defeat, obstruct or
pervert the course of justice.” In the absence of such intent, the “forgery” is
no offence against sec. 314 (1), and the existence of the intent in an abettor
of the “forgery” could not supply the lack of intent in the “forger,” so as to
make the “forgery” an offence against the section. And, indeed, each of the
charges as laid in the information against Mensah for abetting, alleges that
Tabi and Anyimadu had such an intent to defraud.<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial-Judge, however, concluded his judgment in the following words:<o:p></o:p>“After I
had summed up the three assessors unanimously stated that in their opinion the
accused was guilty on both counts. With this opinion I am in entire agreement,
as I am satisfied that when the accused caused this Will to be witnessed after
the death of Kwabena Bonsu, he did so with an intent to defraud.”<o:p></o:p>This
finding of the learned Judge amounts to a direction to himself that it is the
abettor who must intend to defraud, not the principal offender. This is a clear
misdirection, and reveals that the learned Judge’s concept of the offence of
aiding and abetting the commission of a crime is erroneous. In consequence, he
proceeded upon wrong principles, which led him to give a decision amounting (in
our view) to a substantial miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p>Again,
the finding of the learned Judge that the intent to defraud was on the part of
Mensah amounts (taken in its proper context in the judgment) to a finding that
there is no proof that when Seth Tabi and Kwabena Anyimadu forged the will
either of them did so with intent to defraud.<o:p></o:p>Putting
it at its most favourable to the Crown, the learned Judge did not find that the
principals in the crime, Seth Tabi and Kwabena Anyimadu or either of them
forged the Will with intent to defraud, i.e. with intent that there should be
any gain, or the possibility of any gain, to any person at the expen</main>