ADEYARGU vs. THE REPUBLIC [1968]DLHC10247

Date	1968-01-19
Suit No.	G L R 79 - 80
Citation No.	[1968]DLHC10247

AMISSAH J.A.

MRS. J. AMANKWAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

[1968]DLHC10247
																																						<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" >PRACTICE NOTE:<o:p></o:p>ADEYARGU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">G L
R 79 - 80&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:&nbsp;
19TH JANUARY, 1968<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MRS. J. AMANKWAH FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

APPELLANT IN PERSON.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;AMISSAH
J.A.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is a case which illustrates the problem
posed in the judgment in Amadu Fulani v. The Republic [1968] G.L.R. 66 which I
have just read) even better.&nbsp; The
appellant was charged before the circuit court with unlawful entry with
intention to cause damage to property and causing damage to property.&nbsp; He was proved to have set fire to property
worth ¢657.00. Now either such charges are serious enough to warrant severe
punishment when proved or they are not.&nbsp;
If they are not then a summary trial would be the suitable mode of trial
otherwise a trial on indictment seems to be indicated.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;There was no record of any previous
convictions against the appellant.&nbsp; Thus
tit the end of the case, there was nothing to make the case graver than what
the prosecution set out to prove and presumably outlined in their opening
address.&nbsp; There was nothing to show that
the gravity of the offence only emerged in the course of the case, or worse,
that it was hidden until the end.&nbsp; Yet
the appellant was u on conviction, sentenced to four years' imprisonment.&nbsp; If he had been tried on indictment it is most
improbable that a higher sentence would have been imposed. But section 179 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), presumes that case of this nature
being tried summarily, might turn out to be unsuitable for summary trial and
gives the steps which could be taken to committal it into committal proceedings
with a view to having, it tried on indictment.&nbsp;
It is legitimate to ask what the point of having the case converted to a
trial on indictment is, if the offence however serious could be adequately
punished after a summary trial?&nbsp; This is
the crux of the matter which Mrs. Amankwah's argument has, I think, been unable
to meet.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;The sentence must have been imposed with
regard to the value of the property alleged to have been damaged.&nbsp; But the values stated for some of them cannot
be correct.&nbsp; For example amongst the
things burnt were thirteen ten pesewa lotto booklets valued at ¢130.00. The
face value on these tickets may be ten pesewas each, that is, anyone who bought
a ticket, bought a chance at ten pesewas, and if the whole set were bought,
¢30.00 would be paid for them.&nbsp; But that
does not represent the value of the tickets unsold.&nbsp; And it appeared that the complainant was a
lotto ticket seller.&nbsp; Should she lose the
booklet, all she would have lost is the cost of printing the tickets, not their
face value.&nbsp; Similarly one 50 pesewas
lotto booklet was valued at ¢10.00 and fourteen one cedi lotto booklets at
¢140.00. All this helped to inflate the value of the property destroyed and, I
am sure, influenced the sentence imposed.&nbsp;
It is quite possible that in the less rushed atmosphere of the trial on
indictment this would have been detected.&nbsp;
In the summary manner in which the offence was dealt with it certainly
passed unnoticed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;If the circuit judge, upon first
acquaintance, takes the view that an offence is serious he ought to have it
committed.&nbsp; Should the seriousness of the
offence not strike him immediately at the beginning but grow on him in the
course of the summary trial, he has the power to cause the mode of trial to be
changed to one on indictment.&nbsp; But if he
proceeds with the case to its conclusion on the basis that it is not a serious
offence, I do not think it is open to him at the end to treat it in the same
manner which may be adopted by a court which has gone through the mode of trial
reserved for serious offences.&nbsp; Otherwise
I see no object in making the ponderous machinery of the trial o n indictment
applicable at all to cases which could equally be disposed of summarily.&nbsp; We stand to lose sight of the aims and
objects of our creating our different modes of trial if we continue as we have
done of late.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;DECISION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the circumstances I reduce the sentence of
the appellant to One year's imprisonment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;S. K. T.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;</main>