PRACTICE NOTE: STATE vs. KONKOMBA [1962]DLSC1683

Date	1962-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1683

SARKODEE-ADDO J.S.C.

[1962]DLSC1683
																																						<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">PRACTICE NOTE: 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">KONKOMBA <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 2 GLR 181<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

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"> 21ST DECEMBER, 1962.<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">

<o:p>&nbsp;</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-ADDO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
SARKODEE-ADDO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>At the trial of the accused for murder, the trial judge directed
the jury “as to the law relating to a defect of reason arising from
drunkenness.” In so doing he set out the principles governing the defence of
drunkenness under the English criminal law and in particular dealt exhaustively
with the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Arthur Beard [1920] A.C.
479, H.L. and concluded thus: “You must now apply the facts to these principles
and ask yourselves whether in your opinion the accused intended to harm Sarfo
when he used the knife on him. You may have no difficulty in finding that he
knew what he was doing.” There was no reference whatsoever to the criminal
liability of an intoxicated person under our law as specifically provided by
the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), section 28.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon principle as well as upon authority the learned trial judge
erred in relying on English criminal law and not the elaborate provisions in
the Criminal Code relating to intoxication.<o:p></o:p>Article 42 (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana
provides that:<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">“The Supreme Court shall in principle be bound to follow its own
previous decisions on questions of law, and the High Court shall be bound to
follow previous decisions of the Supreme Court on such questions, but neither
court shall be otherwise bound to follow the previous decisions of any court on
questions of law.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the case of Wallace-Johnson v. The King (1938) 5 W.A.C.A. 56 at
p.60, the Privy Council 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">“The elaborate structure of section 330 suggests that it was
intended to contain as far as possible a full and complete statement of the law
of sedition in the Colony. It must therefore be construed in its application to
the facts of this case free from any glosses or interpolations derived from any
expositions however authoritative of the law of England or of Scotland.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This principle applies to section 28 of the Criminal Code, 1960.<o:p></o:p>Turning to the issue of provocation even though the learned trial
judge in his summing-up drew the jury’s attention to the law and read to them
every section of the Criminal Code that could assist them in their deliberations,
he did not explain clearly that what they had to consider was whether in their
view the accused, in view of the alleged assault and battery complained of,
would be likely to be deprived of the power of self-control. The appellant is
advanced in age and of the Konkomba tribe in the Northern Region and such a
direction would necessarily involve an examination of the community to which he
belonged. See R. v. Atta [1959] G.L.R. 337 at p. 339.<o:p></o:p>

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>(The State v. Konkomba alias
Atta. Judgment of the court (Sarkodee-Adoo, Crabbe and Blay, JJ.S.C.) delivered
by Sarkodee-Adoo, J.S.C.)<o:p></o:p></main>