MANU vs. THE STATE [1964]DLHC1925

Date	1964-04-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC1925

SOWAH J.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

A. A. LUGUTERAH STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLHC1925
																																						<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" >MANU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 239<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:
3 APRIL 1964.<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">

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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>This
small appeal has brought into focus the difficult question of the punishment or
sentence of co-defendants; the fact that co-defendants have been punished at
the same time draws attention to any discrimination between them.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case the first accused whom the learned circuit judge described as a young girl
(which description is not quite correct as learned state attorney informed the
court that she was a young woman of twenty-two years), was charged jointly with
the second accused, the appellant herein. Both defendants pleaded guilty, the
young woman was bound over to be of good behaviour and the appellant herein was
sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant has argued that there was no justification for the discrimination and
that having regard to the sentence imposed on the first accused, which in fact
meant that the first accused was not punished, the sentence of nine months on,
the appellant was excessive and harsh.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant further urged that the person who benefited most from the crime was
the first accused and that the appellant obtained no benefit. The first accused
was as a result of the impersonation admitted to the nurses’ training school
and was fed and clothed freely. Further she kept up this deception until she
was caught. The appellant therefore urged that the punishment on joint
offenders should reflect not only any difference in their responsibility for
the commission of the crime, but must also take into consideration any benefit
obtained by each person as a result of the crime. The appellant urged that in
this case they were in pari delicto in the commission of the crime.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Luguterah for the state has urged upon me that the parties were not in pari
delicto and that the circuit judge in exercising his discretion in
discriminating against the parties gave reasons which were borne out by the
facts of the case.<o:p></o:p>For this
court to interfere the circuit judge must be shown to have exercised his
discretion on wrong premises. The learned circuit judge in sentencing the
accused persons said inter alia:<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
first accused is in my opinion a victim of circumstance. By her conviction she
will lose her place at the training school and her demeanour in the dock shows
quite clearly that she has regretted. In the circumstances I will treat her as
a first offender.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
serious thing about this passage is we are not told how the first accused
became a victim of circumstance, she knew she was personating and did keep up
that appearance until she was caught. Further she did not lose her place in the
nurses’ training school by her conviction, because ab initio she had no place
in the training school and only got there by subterfuge. Indeed she lost
nothing by her conviction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If I may
say </main>