ANTOH vs. THE STATE [1965]DLSC1778

Date	1965-11-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1778

OLLENNU JSC

BRUCE-LYLE JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

S. M. BOISON PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLSC1778
																																						<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" >ANTOH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 676<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:
23 NOVEMBER 1965.<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">

OLLENNU, BRUCE-LYLE AND SIRIBOE JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu J.S.C.
delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted by the High
Court, Sunyani, of the offence of possessing forged Ghana currency notes
contrary to section 18 of the Currency Act, 1960.1<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
following facts found by the trial judge axe not in dispute. Acting upon
information received, five policemen, including a sergeant, armed with a search
warrant, went to search the premises of the appellant; the premises consisted
of a shop and an adjoining living room. The appellant was not in when the party
arrived at his premises so they remained outside the shop until he returned;
three of the policemen then entered the building with the appellant, while the
other two remained outside. A thorough search was conducted of the person of
the appellant, his shop and his living room, but nothing incriminating was
found. Just before the search party left the room of the appellant one of the
two constables outside the building called upon the constables in the building
to bring the appellant outside; they did so and went to the constable at a spot
where he stood, about a yard away from the entrance of the store. There the
constable pointed to the ground at a plastic bag protruding from the mud and
ordered the appellant to pull it out, and the appellant did so. The bag was
then opened and was found to contain 31 forged Ghana one pound notes. When
questioned, the appellant denied all knowledge of these notes; he was arrested
and taken to the Duayaw-Nkwanta Police Station and subsequently to Tepa Police
Station. Later, the appellant was charged with the offence and cautioned; he
denied the charge and said he would make his statement in court.<o:p></o:p>The
prosecution alleged that while in custody, the appellant made a statement in
Twi to the detective sergeant in charge of the case, in the presence of an
independent witness, and that the sergeant reduced the same into writing and
had it thumb-printed by the appellant. This statement was admitted in evidence
as exhibit A. In that statement the appellant is alleged to have said that the
bag containing the notes was brought to him by one Kofi Mensah, and that when
he the appellant discovered that it contained forged notes, he did not want to
keep it so he buried it away in the mud. The appellant on the other hand denied
making any such statement to the sergeant. He said that what really happened
was that while he was in custody at the Duayaw-Nkwanta Police Station, the
sergeant came to him and asked him whether he knew a man called Kofi Mensah,
and upon his replying that he knew him, the sergeant further asked him whether
it was not true that the said Kofi Mensah had brought the bag of forged notes
to him, and he had then buried it in the mud; the appellant said that to that
question he replied “No.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned judge of the High Court, Lassey J. (as he then was), properly directed
himself that no conviction can be founded upon the facts which are not in
dispute. He however convicted the appellant because, said he, “Satisfactory
evidence is supplied in the accused’s own statement to the police, exhibit A.”
He continued, “I must also observe that in accepting the statement exhibit A I
am fully satisfied that the accused made that statement freely and voluntarily
in the presence of an independent person who also witnessed the making of the
statement.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In so
directing himself, the learned judge showed a grave misconception of the issue
raised in the case with respect to the statement, exhibit A. He confused the
issue as to the admissibility of a statement with the issue as to weight to be
attached to the statement. The test which the learned judge applied is a test
as to admissibility of the statement. A statement is admissible if proved to be
voluntary. But a statement though admitted as having been voluntarily made, may
nevertheless he worthless in evidential value. It is therefore incumbent on a
court, after admitting a statement in evidence, as made voluntarily, to direct itself
on the issue as to the weight to be attached to the admitted statement. This is
particularly so in a case like this where a defendant disputes the contents of
the admitted statement. The admissibility of the statement exhibit A, was no
problem in this case, in fact the appellant withdrew his objection to its
admission; that perhaps misled the learned judge.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>