BANDA vs. THE REPUBLIC [1977]DLHC1251

Date	1977-03-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1251

OSEI-HWERE J.

YAW MANU FOR THE APPELLANT.

OSSEI STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLHC1251
																																						<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" >BANDA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90]2 GLR 253<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:
28 MARCH 1977<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">

YAW MANU 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant was arraigned before the District Court Grade I, Wenchi, on four
counts of stealing. He pleaded guilty to all the counts and he was accordingly
convicted and sentenced to a term of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour
on each count and the trial magistrate ordered the sentences to run
consecutively having regard to the facts of the case. The facts of the case as
told by the prosecutor to the court disclosed that on the night in question
when all the thefts in the four counts were committed there was a wedding dance
in the village of Menji to which the complainants had repaired. The appellant
and one other took advantage of the situation and went from door to door to
steal the articles mentioned in the counts. The personal effects stolen
amounted to ¢800.00, ¢200.16, ¢90.00 and ¢60.00 in the respective counts. The
appellant who is aggrieved by his conviction and sentences has petitioned to
the court upon the following grounds:<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
sentence of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour for each of four counts to
run consecutively is too harsh and unreasonable and cannot be made to stand. <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 erred in law in imposing a sentence of two years’ imprisonment
with hard labour on the appellant in respect of each count to run consecutively
since the appellant did those several acts mentioned in the counts in execution
of one criminal purpose.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It became
quite obvious when the appeal came to be argued that in formulating these
grounds of appeal counsel sought umbrage under sections 302 (a) and 303 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30).<o:p></o:p>With
respect to cases where one act constitutes several crimes, or where several
acts are done in execution of one criminal purpose section 302 (a) provides
that:<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)
where a person does several acts against or in respect of one person or thing,
each of which acts is a crime, but the whole of which acts are done in
execution of the same design, and, in the opinion of the Court before which the
person is tried, form one continuous transaction, the person may be punished
for the whole of such acts as one crime, or for any one or several of such acts
as one crime, and all the acts may be taken into consideration in awarding
punishment, but he shall be liable to separate punishments as for several
crimes.”<o:p></o:p>Section
303 also provides 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">“303.
Notwithstanding anything in section 302 to the contrary it shall be and shall
be deemed always to have been lawful for the Court to pass on any person
convicted (at one or more trials) of any two or more offences a separate
sentence in respect of any or every such offence so that, however, in those
cases in respect of which the said section 302 imposes certain restrictions in
regard to punishment, such separate sentences, if sentences of imprisonment,
shall run concurrently and not consecutively, and, if sentences of fines, shall
not so operate as to impose the fines cumulatively.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s counsel has argued that the cumulative effect of these two sections
is that where a person commits various offences arising from one grand criminal
design the prosecution may elect to do one of two things, i.e. either to elect
to take one of the offences and charge the accused with it or in the
alternative to charge the accused with all the offences arising out of the one
design, in which case when convicted on those offences the sentences must be
made to run concurrently. Counsel quoted in support of his submission Asamadey
alias Osagyefo v. Commissioner of Police [1963] 2 G.L.R. 400 and Practice Note
(Blackie v. The State) [1962] 2 G.L.R. 219, S.C. Counsel further argued that
apart from the consecutive sentences being wrong in la</main>