NSOWAH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLHC2300

Date	1973-01-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2300

OSEI-HWERE J.

MISS ASARE KORANG FOR THE APPELLANT.

ROBERT KYEI ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2300
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">NSOWAH <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<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;[1974] 1 GLR 34<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:
9 JANUARY 1973.<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 ASARE
KORANG FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

ROBERT
KYEI, ASSISTANT 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">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>On 15
December 1972, I allowed the appellant’s appeal against his conviction and
sentence and reserved my reasons which I now proceed to give. The appellant was
arraigned before the District Court Grade II, Atebubu, on a count of careless
driving and on another count of negligently causing harm. The particulars of
the careless driving charged him with driving “without due care and attention.”
The appellant pleaded not guilty to these charges and after the trial
magistrate had heard the evidence, he convicted the appellant on both counts
and sentenced him to a fine of ¢100.00 or six months’ imprisonment with hard
labour on the first count and ¢200.00 or twelve months’ imprisonment with hard
labour on the second count. He ordered “sentence to run concurrent” and he,
additionally, ordered that the appellant be disqualified from holding a driving
licence for a period of twelve months. It is against this conviction and
sentence that the appellant appealed and the grounds of appeal filed on his
behalf by his solicitor are as follows: “(1) The judgment of the trial
magistrate is unreasonable having regard to the evidence; (2) The sentence is
excessive and unreasonable.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
appellant’s counsel had argued at some length, the respondent’s counsel was
invited by the court to support the judgment. The assistant state attorney,
without any apology, threw in the towel by conceding (and rightly too) his
inability to support it. The judgment itself is bereft of any findings of fact
except for the following:<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">“if the
accused had not driven the vehicle carelessly he would have been able to save
the girl at such an open space where the accident occurred. From the place of
impact to the place where accused could stop his vehicle proved that he was
driving carelessly.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The rest
of the judgment consists of the reproduction of the statement and particulars
of the offences and a resume of the evidence of the witnesses.<o:p></o:p>It at
once becomes clear from the above findings of fact and the conclusion drawn
therefrom that the trial magistrate failed to consider that the burden of proof
lay on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt and that there was no duty on the appellant to establish his
innocence. For what the trial magistrate is evidently saying is that because
the appellant was not able to avoid the girl in an open space and also because
the appellant stopped his vehicle at an undecided distance from the point of
impact then he must have driven his vehicle carelessly.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The test
for careless driving does not depend on the mere ipse dixit of the trial
magistrate but, as decided in Taylor v. Rogers (1960) 124 J.P. 217, it is an
objective one. Each case must, therefore, depend objectively on its own facts
to determine whether there was exercised that degree of “care and attention”
which a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances. The
question of careless driving is not dependent upon the lack of skill of the
driver as the trial magistrate seems to suggest, but it is a question dependent
upon lack of care and attention. In McCrone v. Riding [1938] 1 All E.R. 157 at
pp. 158-159, D.C., Lord Hewart C.J. had this to say:<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">