ACKOM vs. THE REPUBLIC [1974]DLHC2243

Date	1974-11-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2243

OSEI-HWERE J.

POBEE FOR THE APPELLANT.

OSSEI ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1974]DLHC2243
																																						<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">ACKOM <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>[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] 2 GLR 419<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:
1 NOVEMBER 1974.<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">

POBEE FOR
THE APPELLANT.<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>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is brought against the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the
District Magistrate Grade I, Sunyani (sitting at Bechem) on one count of
careless driving and on many counts for negligently causing harm. The
appellant, indeed, was arraigned before the court on 45 counts for the latter
offence and he was convicted and sentenced on 36 of these counts. The
prosecution’s case against the appellant at the trial, briefly, was that on the
day in question a three-ton vehicle carrying 43 passengers (including the first
prosecution witness, the second prosecution witness and the third prosecution
witness) was travelling from Mim direction towards Kasapim. As the vehicle was
descending a slope in the course of the journey, an approaching tipper truck was
sighted and, because of the cloud of dust raised by the approaching vehicle,
the driver of the three-tonner stopped his vehicle on the left-side of the road
(being its proper side). Not long after the tipper truck had by-passed the
stationary vehicle the headlight of an approaching vehicle was also seen and
before one could cry out “Jack Robinson” the on-coming vehicle ran into the
stationary vehicle. The driver of the three-tonner and one passenger in his
vehicle died on the spot and four others also succumbed to their injuries
later. Many more of the passengers sustained various injuries.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
defence the appellant denied the charges. According to him he was, at the
material time, the driver of a timber truck loaded with three logs and was
travelling towards Mim. In the course of the journey he sighted a vehicle
following him and he gave way to it and it passed. Because of the dust raised
by the leading vehicle he stopped to allow the dust to clear. Later he set out
again and, as he was descending a slope, he sighted a vehicle approaching from
the opposite direction with its headlights on. As the approaching vehicle was
in his lane he applied his brakes but because of the weight of the load his
vehicle could not stop. To avoid a head-on collision he swerved to his off-side
and the on-coming vehicle also swerved to its near-side and the two vehicles
collided in the middle of the road. According to the appellant it was the
front, left corner of his vehicle which hit the front, right corner of the
approaching vehicle.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s counsel principally argued the additional grounds of appeal filed
which were 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) The
learned trial magistrate erred in law when he failed to consider whether or not
the defence was reasonably probable. <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">(2) The trial
magistrate failed to give satisfactory reasons for his reference of the case
for the prosecution to that of the defence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguing
ground (2) of the above grounds of appeal counsel first charged that the trial
magistrate failed to carry out his mandatory duty under section 177 (1) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), in giving reasons for his decision. I
must say straightaway that I cannot, on reading the judgment, sustain the
charge of the appellant’s counsel. I find that the trial magistrate gave a
reasoned decision. He believed the evidence of the first, second and third
prosecution witnesses that their vehicle was stationary when the appellant
drove his loaded timber truck into it. He then went on to disintegrate the
appellant’s defence by certain inferences he drew from the evidence of the
defence witnesses and from the evidence of the investigating policeman, the
fourth prosecution witness. It is one thing to complain that a judgment is not
reasoned at all and it is another thing to say that the reasons are erroneous.
Where a trial court gives no reasons at all for its decision and the reasons
are not obvious from the evidence before the trial</main>