ADDO vs. THE REPUBLIC [1974]DLHC2246

Date	1974-03-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2246

EDWARD WIREDU J.

G. ACQUAAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

TURKSON STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1974]DLHC2246
																																						<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">ADDO<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">&nbsp;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, CAPE
COAST]<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 254<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:
15 MARCH 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">

G. ACQUAAH
FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

TURKSON,
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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>The
points for consideration in this appeal involved two aspects of criminal
practice and procedure namely: (a) the circumstances under which bad, defective
or imperfect charges or both can be cured by subsequent evidence led and (b)
the circumstances under which a court can competently ignore a statutory
punishment prescribed for a particular offence charged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The brief
facts of this case show that on 1 May 1973 the appellant was arraigned before
the Agona Swedru District Court Grade II charged with an offence under section
296 (2) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). He was tried, convicted and
sentenced to a prison term of three months’ imprisonment with hard labour on 3
May 1973. This appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
the appeal itself came up for hearing, an application for bail was brought on
behalf of the appellant. This was supported by a ten paragraphed affidavit,
paragraph (7) of which reads as follows: “That since the sentence is only three
months the appellant might definitely serve the whole term before the appeal is
heard.” I have singled out paragraph (7) because a cursory glance through the
supporting affidavit reveals that as the only point of some legal significance.
Otherwise there was nothing impressive in the other remaining paragraphs which
would, on the face of the application, have justified the propriety of the
application for bail. I was however attracted by the sentence imposed in
relation to the section under which the appellant<o:p></o:p>was
charged in the court below. That section provides a statutory maximum
punishment of a ¢100 fine for any of the offences created under it. It does not
authorise the imposition of a prison term as an option. This was ignored by the
trial magistrate who instead, imposed a prison term of three months’
imprisonment with hard labour on the appellant. This violation of the statutory
penalty prescribed by the law in my view provided a prima facie case to justify
the granting of bail. I therefore invited Mr. Agudetse, the state attorney who
appeared for the Republic, to state whether he could resist the application.
Learned state attorney frankly conceded that a case had been made to justify
the appellant being admitted to bail both on the grounds raised in paragraph
(7) as stated above and on the sentence imposed. I therefore without hesitation
admitted the appellant to bail upon his depositing ¢50, half the maximum fine
prescribed by law: see R. v. Tunwashe (1935) 2 W.A.C.A. 236 and State v. Owusu,
Court of Appeal, 22 June 1967, unreported; digested in (1967) C.C. 111.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
judgment of the trial court was appealed against on four main grounds which
are:<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">(a) the
judgment is bad and cannot be supported by the evidence,<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">(b) the
indictment is bad as the particulars do not support the charge,<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">(c) the
judgment is bad as the lay magistrate was influenced by outside information,<o:p></o:p>