OSEI vs. THE REPUBLIC [1971]DLHC2141

Date	1971-03-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2141

TAYLOR J.

T. A. TOTOE FOR THE APPLICANT.

J. C. AMONOO-MONEY STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLHC2141
																																						<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" >OSEI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <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; [HIGH COURT, KUMASI]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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 341<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:
19 MARCH 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">

T. A. TOTOE FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. C. AMONOO-MONEY, 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">

TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>I think
this is a most unfortunate case. The juvenile courts must be alive to their
responsibilities. The juvenile in this case is a school girl and the charge is
acts tending to disturb the peace contrary to section 298 of the Criminal Code,
1960 (Act 29), and yet when the case was called and she pleaded not guilty she
was immediately remanded into custody for one week. This juvenile has clearly
been dealt with as if she has committed some heinous crime. Now the principle
which the juvenile court should apply is contained in section 344 (1) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), and 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">“(1).
Where a juvenile for any cause is remanded in custody by a Juvenile Court, the
Court shall whenever possible commit him to the care of his parents or guardian
or any fit person, whether a relative or not, who is willing to undertake the
care of him, or to a remand home established under Part XI of this Code.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
to me that to prevent a school girl from going to school by remanding her in
custody on a charge as petty as acts tending to disturb the peace, a charge
which is not punishable by imprisonment, is indeed most irresponsible. The
remand into prison is more harsh than the sentence which the court could have
imposed if it had found the juvenile guilty, because under section 298 of Act
29 the maximum sentence is a fine of N¢100.00. It seems to me that section
344(1) of Act 30 gives a guide-line as to what the juvenile court should do in
the circumstances. It is a most unfortunate exercise of discretion and an abuse
of discretion bordering on a reckless failure to do their duty when the
juvenile court remanded this school girl into custody instead of remanding her
into the care of her parents or guardian or any adult willing to take care of
her.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In so far
as the court ignored its duty, its order cannot be contained. The juvenile is
hereby admitted to bail and committed to the care of her mother, the deponent
herein, Ama Hawa of Ahensan. She is to enter into a bond in the sum of N¢10.00
without sureties conditioned for her producing the juvenile in court at any
time the court wants her to stand her trial. This ruling should be brought to
the attention of the juvenile court. Registrar to carry out.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>