DANIELS vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLHC2373

Date	1973-08-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2373

QUASHIE-SAM

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE APPELLANT.

MRS. ANSONG STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1973]DLHC2373
																																						<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" >DANIELS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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;[1973]
1 GLR 31<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
25 AUGUST 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">

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. ANSONG, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.<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<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>In this
appeal the only ground canvassed on behalf of the appellant is that of
misdirection by the magistrate on the law pertaining to the evidence of an
accomplice. Without going into the facts at length which are very clear on the
record, there are certain aspects of this case which need to be commented upon.
The principal witness in this case, one Acquah, was rightly found by the trial
magistrate to be an accomplice in this case where ten iron rods being the
property of the Posts and Telecommunication Department, Tema, were allegedly
stolen by the appellant. Both the accused and Acquah were at the material time
employees of the Posts and Telecommunication Department, and the evidence shows
that both the accused and Acquah were living in one house and that it was
Acquah who in fact conveyed the iron rods to the welder for work on the windows
of that house.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On these
facts, the learned trial magistrate made the following findings:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:3.1pt;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;“.
. .to that extent he was an accomplice but I am satisfied, in full awareness of
the danger in acting on the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration
that the first prosecution witness is not only a truthful witness but also that
his testimony commands corroboration sufficient to warrant the accused person’s
conviction.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The law
is quite clear on what is required as to corroboration of the evidence of an
accomplice. This is what it says in Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence &amp;
Practice (35th ed.), para. 930 (4):<o:p></o:p>“Absence
of corroboration. The rule that a judge must give the jury a proper warning as
to the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice,
although it is a rule of practice, now has the force of a rule of law. If such
a warning is not given the Court of Criminal Appeal will quash the conviction,
even if in fact there be ample corroborative evidence, unless the court can
apply the proviso to section 4 (1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (see post,
s. 939): Davies v. D.P.P. [1954] A.C. 378; 38 Cr.App.R. 11. See also R. v. Tate
[1908] 2 K.B. 680; 1 Cr.App.R. 39; R . v. Baskerville [1916] 2 K.B. 658; 12
Cr.App.R. 81; R. v. Charavanamuttu, 22 Cr.App.R. 1; R. v. Lewis, 26 Cr.App.R.
110; R. v. Moore, 28 Cr.App.R. 111; R. v. Savory, 29 Cr.App.R. 1.<o:p></o:p>Where
also matters which cannot be corroboration are treated as being so, the court
may quash the conviction. See R. v. Martin, Ansell &amp; Ross, 24 Cr.App.R.
177. If after the proper caution by the judge the jury convict the prisoner,
the court will not quash the conviction merely upon the ground that the
accomplice’s evidence was uncorroborated , but will review all the facts of the
case, and if it thinks the verdict unreasonable or that it cannot be supported
having regard to the evidence the court will quash the conviction. R. v.
Baskerville, ante. See also R. v. Norris, 12 Cr.App.R. 156. Where corroboration
is required by statute, similar rules obtain. R. v. Baskerville, ante. See also
R. v. Goldstein, 11 Cr.App.R. 27; R. v. Davies, 11 Cr.App.R. 272; R. v. Gregg,
24 Cr.App.R. 13; R. v. Winfield, 27 Cr.App.R. 139; R. v. Cleal, 28 Cr.App.R.
95; R. v. Dent, 29 Cr.App.R. 120.”<o:p></o:p>What is
more, the fact of a witness being an accomplice, accessory or principal
detracts very materially from his credit. See also Archbold (supra), para.
1292.<o:p></o:p>It is
clear from the record in this appeal that after the trial magistrate had
sufficiently warned himself on the danger of convicting on this uncorroborated
evidence of Acquah, he p</main>