THE STATE vs. AFENUVOR [1961]DLSC5511

Date	1961-11-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC5511

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

CRABBE J.S.C.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

K. DUA SAKYI WITH HIM SARKODEE FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).

[1961]DLSC5511
																																						<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">&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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">AFENUVOR<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">[1961] GLR 655&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;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"> 13TH NOVEMBER, 1961.<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">

APPELLANT
IN PERSON.<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 0in 0in">

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC,
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC, CRABBE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Adumua Bossman J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. [His
lordship narrated the facts and continued:] In this appeal against conviction
for murder complaint is made as to the manner in which the learned trial judge
directed the jury, and it is contended firstly, that he: “gave conflicting
directions on the burden of proof resting upon the prosecution and this amounts
to misdirection”; and secondly, that he “omitted all reference to the burden of
proof resting upon the defence, and this amounts to misdirection.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Developing the first contention, learned counsel referred to the
portion of the learned trial judge’s summing-up where he said:<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">“In giving you explanations as to the law involved, I am required
to instruct you about the most important guiding rules. The first is this and
it is most important, that the prisoner before us is deemed completely innocent
until the contrary is proved; and therefore it has been the duty and obligation
of the prosecution, from the outset of the trial, to prove and substantiate the
charge against the prisoner to your satisfaction.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel quarrels with and takes exception to the phrase “to prove
and substantiate the charge to your satisfaction”, because he contends that the
direction in those terms does not adequately or sufficiently enough instruct
the jury as to the high standard of proof which is now established to be
required of the prosecution in its effort to discharge the burden of proof in a
criminal prosecution. Counsel went on to express reliance on R. v. Hepworth and
Fearnley1(1) and Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd.2(2) and three recent
decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal in England namely, R. v. Head and
Warrener,3(3) R. v. Manning4(4) and R. v. Hadjimitsis.5(5)<o:p></o:p>It is necessary to make a speedy examination of these authorities
relied on in order to ascertain not only the ratio decidendi in each case, but
also whether or not they support learned counsel’s contentions.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In R. v. Hepworth and Fearnley (coram Lord Goddard, C.J. and
Finnemore and Devlin, JJ.) the complaint upheld by the court was that: “The
summing-up was unsatisfactory in the manner in which it dealt with the burden
of proof . . . He [the recorder] merely told the jury not to convict unless
they were ‘satisfied’ of certain facts.”<o:p></o:p>Lord Goddard, C.J. in the course of his judgment said as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Another complaint that is made in this case is that the Recorder
used only the word ‘satisfied’. It may be, especially in view of the number of
cases recently in which this question has arisen, that I misled courts when I
said in Summers (1952) 36 Cr. App. R. 14 at 15, . . . that I think it is very
unfortunate to talk to juries about reasonable doubt, because the explanations
given of what is and what is not reasonable doubt are so very often
extraordinarily difficult to follow and it is very difficult to tell a jury
what is a reasonable doubt I therefore, suggested in that case that it would be
better to use some other expression, by </main>