THE STATE vs. MOSHIE [1960]DLSC5352

Date	1960-11-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLSC5352

VAN LARE JSC

SARKODEE-ADDO JSC

AKIWUMI J.S.C.

TAMAKLOE FOR APPELLANT.

AMISSAH FOR RESPONDENT.

[1960]DLSC5352
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">THE STATE <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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">MOSHIE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>[1960] GLR 222&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;DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0"> 25TH NOVEMBER, 1960.<o:p></o:p>

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

TAMAKLOE
FOR APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

VAN LARE JSC, SARKODEE-ADDO JSC, AKIWUMI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF
SARKODEE-ADOO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Sarkodee-Adoo J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court: We
dismissed this appeal against conviction for murder and now give our reasons.<o:p></o:p>The offence charged against the appellant was that he on the 29th
August, 1959, at Koradaso Village near Begoro murdered one Kwame Affum alias
Kwame Affunti, and in the opinion of this court there was no substance in any
of the grounds argued in support of the contention that the conviction should
be quashed. The appellant was seen viciously slashing the deceased with a cutlass
and according to the medical evidence at the trial there were found 21 incised
wounds; indeed the evidence is such that there can be no doubt that the
appellant clearly intended to kill the deceased in circumstances in which no
matters of provocation or self-defence could possibly arise and no reasonable
jury could have arrived at any other conclusion but the verdict in this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We have however been much concerned with, and perturbed by, the
scope and trend of the learned trial judge’s summing-up which unduly and
unnecessarily went to the extent of dealing at length with such matters as
self-defence, provocation and death in an unlawful fight, which were not in
issue nor in any way relevant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Irrelevant and unjustified as these matters are, having regard to
the evidence, even though the jury came to a proper decision in the case, we
nevertheless think it necessary to refer to the possibility of a miscarriage of
justice in setting a guilty person free. We cannot over-emphasise the danger
arising from such undue and needless resort to irrelevancies in so important a
trial of a capital charge.<o:p></o:p>In the administration of justice, properly so called, the law must
be applicable to the facts in issue and not to hypothetical imaginations or
illusions. The principles of summing-up are well-established and indeed settled
on the authorities. A review or resume of the principles and the decided cases
thereon are unnecessary for the purpose of these observations but suffice it to
state in that connection that a judge may go through and comment on the
evidence given and should direct on the law relating to the case and not
otherwise. In the absence of evidence it is the duty of a judge in a jury trial
to direct that certain defences as a matter of law do not or cannot arise in
the particular case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In conclusion we refer to the judgment in the case of Regina v.
Zimbore Grunshie [1960] G.L.R. 56 where this court referred to a summing-up
which appeared to have been at fault not against the appellant but rather went
too far in his favour. In that case we pointed out the importance of such a
situation and referred to the possibility that in view of the summing-up the
jury could have been misled to return a verdict which was not in law open to
them. This exactly is the position in this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DECISION<o:p></o:p>

Appeal dismissed.<o:p></o:p></main>