TURKSON vs. THE REPUBLIC [1970]DLHC2171

Date	1970-07-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2171

QUASHIE-SAM J.

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE APPELLANT.

ISAAC ODOI STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1970]DLHC2171
																																						<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" >TURKSON <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA.]<o:p></o:p>&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;&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;[1971] 1 GLR 35<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:
31 JULY 1970.<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">

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

ISAAC ODOI, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant together with one Ebenezer Saka was jointly charged before the
District Court at Mpraeso with conspiracy to steal and stealing a quantity of
engine oil. Each pleaded guilty with explanation to both charges and gave
identical explanations which the trial court refused to accept. The trial court
convicted each of them on their pleas on 30 October 1969. The first accused who
is the appellant herein was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard
labour and the second accused to five months’ imprisonment with hard labour,
sentences in each case being made concurrent. The second accused Saka appealed
to the High Court, Accra, against his conviction on 18 December 1969. Counsel
for the respondent conceded the submission by counsel for Saka that a plea of
not guilty should have been entered upon the explanation given at the court
below for trial to proceed on merit. Counsel for the respondent further
conceded that there should be a retrial, whereupon the court made an order
allowing the appeal in the following terms:<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
appeal is allowed. The magistrate should have entered a plea of not guilty. The
conviction and sentence of the second accused are set aside. There should be a
trial de novo. There should be a trial before another magistrate.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It should
be appreciated that this order did not affect the present appellant who was the
first accused at the trial. Apparently this was so because unlike the second
accused he did not appeal. Consequently he served the six months’ term while
his companion served just three months’ when his appeal was allowed.<o:p></o:p>It must
also be appreciated that the High Court in granting the appeal did not state
any reason why it thought a plea of not guilty should have been entered.<o:p></o:p>After
serving his sentence of six months, and upon hearing of the result of his
companion’s appeal, the appellant herein applied for an extension of time
within which to appeal and has appealed on two grounds 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">“(1) The
conviction was wrong having regard to the evidence adduced before the court.
(2) The charge of conspiracy is wrong in law, because the accused cannot
conspire alone.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing, counsel for the appellant offered no argument on the first ground of
appeal, perhaps, for the apparent reason that there was no evidence taken at the
trial, but counsel urged that since the trial was of two persons charged with
the same offences before the same court, and the case of the present appellant
was on all fours with that of his colleague in the earlier appeal, the High
Court as the appellate court, should have exercised its powers to bring the
justice of the case to the two of them at the same time when the second
accused’s conviction and sentence were quashed and a retrial was ordered, even
though the first accused had not appealed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I am of
the opinion that when the appellate court found that a plea of not guilty
should have been entered, it decided something fundamental at the j</main>