AMOAH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1971]DLHC2074

Date	1971-04-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2074

MENSA BOISON J.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

C. S. K. AGBANU STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLHC2074
																																						<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" >AMOAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<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] 2 GLR 72<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:
30 APRIL 1971.<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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant pleaded guilty to a count of assault and of causing damage to
property contrary to sections 84 and 172 respectively of the Criminal Code,
1960 (Act 29), before the District Court Grade II, Bekwai. He was accordingly
convicted by the trial magistrate, who cautioned and discharged the appellant
on the first count and imposed a fine of N¢400.00 or in default 24 months’
imprisonment as regards the second count. It is against this sentence on the
second count that the appellant now appeals.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
are not relevant, save that the articles which the appellant damaged were
personal articles of clothing and household gear of the complainant, and in all
valued at N¢36.25. These articles belonged to a sister of the appellant and
were damaged in a fracas in the house after the accused had been drinking at a
funeral. Further the appellant admitted one previous conviction for causing
harm, for which he was sentenced to twelve month’s imprisonment with hard labour.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
facts and the previous record as given, the magistrate thought the appellant
was a nuisance to the community, and decided to apply the Courts Decree, 1966
(N. L. C. D. 84), para. 51 (3), which empowers a district court to impose twice
its maximum punishment where increased punishment may be imposed upon a person
previously convicted of a crime. It was as a result of this view that the
magistrate imposed what obviously is a harsh sentence of N¢400.00 or 24 months’
imprisonment with hard labour. In this case the magistrate had stated that the
appellant was a trouble maker “in a decent society, and he is to be kept . . .
in the prison for some time.” It is obvious that he intended the appellant to
be kept in prison. Why then the option of a fine of as much as N¢400.00 against
a total value of only N¢36.25 of articles damaged? If it is thought that the
previous record of an accused is unsavoury, and that a term of imprisonment in
the circumstances would be the best punishment, the court ought to be realistic
and straight way mete out a term of imprisonment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my
opinion, therefore, where the court’s primary object is to keep the accused in
prison it is improper to impose so huge a fine as an option, with the obvious
effect that the accused will find it far beyond his means and thereby achieve
the desired result of the accused serving a term of imprisonment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
facts of this case, one may well think an option of a fine would meet the case;
because if paid the complainant could be given some compensation for the
damaged articles. The fine, however, must be related to the value at stake. I
am of the opinion that as compared with the value of N¢36.25 the fine of
N¢400.00 was grossly excessive in all the circumstances of the case. The
magistrate in my view erred in the exercise of his discretion in the manner of
the sentence on the second count.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Besides
the magistrate appeared to have decided to enhance the sentence of the
appellant to the maximum of two years by reason of his admitted previous conviction.
In this he relied on N.L.C.D. 84, para. 51 (3), which provides that: [His
lo</main>