OFEI vs. THE STATE [1965]DLSC1839

Date	1965-11-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1839

OLLENNU JSC

SIRIBOE JSC

LASSEY J.S.C.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

S. M. BOISON PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY (WITH HIM AIKINS STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLSC1839
																																						<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" >OFEI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 680<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, SIRIBOE AND LASSEY JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGEMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant is an ordained
minister of the Methodist Church, and was at all times material to this case,
the circuit superintendent in charge of the Axim circuit of the Methodist
Church; by virtue of that office he was also the local manager of all schools
in the district within the Methodist educational unit and others under the
management of the said unit; his duties in that regard include payment of
salaries of all teachers employed in those schools. He was brought before the
Circuit Court, Axim, some time in November 1963, charged with 75 counts of
stealing various sums of money, properties of the several teachers of the
schools under his management. The case was adjourned from time to time, and on 15
February 1964, the charges were withdrawn and ‘fresh ones preferred against
him. The only apparent difference between the charge sheet which was withdrawn
and the new one preferred is the title; the title of the original charge sheet
read, “C.O.P. v. Sampson Titi Ofei,” while that of the substituted charge sheet
reads, “The State v. Sampson Titi Ofei.” Bail was granted to the appellant in
the sum of £G1,000 with two sureties each to be justified but he was unable to
procure sureties who could be approved of, so he remained in custody throughout
the hearing of the case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
of the case commenced on the said 15 February 1964, and continued, adjourned
from week to week, until 21 March 1964, when it concluded. The full record of
proceedings taken by the circuit judge on that day is as follows:<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
State v. S. T. Ofei. The accused applies to speak at this stage. Case
re-opened. The accused changes his plea to guilty. Charge read and explained to
the accused again. Plea: Guilty to all counts. Pleads in mitigation that the
stamps were bought and got lost. Forty-five witnesses have given evidence
already and the facts are plain and the plea of guilty is accepted. The
explanation does not vitiate the plea of guilty. Sentence: Three years’
imprisonment with hard labour. Exhibit to be refunded to Ghana Government under
section 147 (1) of Act 30.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
impression which this record conveys is that the case for both sides had
closed, the appellant then requested that the case should be re-opened, the
circuit judge re-opened it in compliance with that request, thereupon the
appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty to the charges.
It is most unfortunate that this record made by the learned circuit judge
contradicts the record he had taken down on the hearing date immediately
preceding the hearing on 21 March 1964. The record prior to that date shows
that the prosecution had called 45 witnesses, but had not closed their case;
consequently the appellant could not have closed his case, and there would be
no question of the court re-opening the case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Immediately
after his conviction and sentence the appellant filed a petition for appeal
against his conviction; he supported the petition with an affidavit in which he
alleged that he had not pleaded guilty to the charges, that before the court
sat on 21 March 1964, the court clerk and the police inspector in charge of the
case had come to him in the cells, and told him that the circuit judge who had
been trying the case was proceeding on transfer, and so if he the appellant
would say that he was guilty with explanation, the circuit judge would accept
his explanation and let him off to go and settle the matter with the
complainants. Therefore, the appellant said, when the case was called, and the
circuit judge asked him again if he had anything to say, he did as the clerk of
the court and the inspector of police had told him explained to the court that
he had applied the moneys in buying compulsory savings stamps for the
complainants, but owing to his many duties he had got some of the stamps mixed
up and others mislaid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned judge of the High Court, Bruce-Lyle J. (as he then was) before whom the
appeal came, caused copies of the affidavit of the appellant to be served upon
the clerk of the court and the inspector of police mentio</main>