DONKOR vs. THE REPUBLIC [1977]DLHC1311

Date	1977-07-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1311

OSEI-HWERE J.

OHENE-ANOBAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

YAW MANU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLHC1311
																																						<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" >DONKOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1977] GLR 373<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:
30 JULY 1976<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">

OHENE-ANOBAH 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>On 18
December 1975, the juvenile court committed the appellant’s son, a juvenile
aged sixteen years, according to the appellant’s estimation, to Borstal for
three years and further ordered that the father of the juvenile offender should
pay to the complainant ¢1,496.10 being the total cost of the articles alleged
to have been stolen by the juvenile offender, Takyi Donkor. Before his sentence
the juvenile offender had pleaded guilty to various offences charged against
him on five separate charge sheets. The chronological sequence of his criminal
proclivities that was before the court ran like this: On 24 August 1975 he
broke into an unoccupied building and stole louvre blades valued at ¢408.00 and
he thus faced one count of unlawful entry and another count of stealing on
charge sheet No. 21/75; on 25 August 1975 he was arrested for threatening and
charged on charge sheet No. 20/75; on 5 October 1975 he stole various articles
valued at ¢113.00 from a dwelling room and he was charged with stealing on
charge sheet No. 25\75; on 4 November 1975 he stole a bed-sheet and two pillow
cases valued at ¢14.00 from a dwelling-house and he was charged with stealing
on charge sheet No. 22/75; finally, in the small hours of 14 November 1975 (the
most dastardly of all his criminal activities) he broke into a kiosk and stole various
wares totalling in value ¢1,496.00 and he was charged on charge sheet No. 24/75
on a count of unlawful entry and on another count of stealing. After pleading
guilty to all these offences the probation officer submitted a report on the
juvenile offender and it was upon the recommendation in his report that the
above-mentioned order was made against the father. The appellant is aggrieved
by the order made against him and he has accordingly appealed to this court to
vacate it. <o:p></o:p>His only
ground of appeal is 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">“The
court’s order for payment by the appellant of the value of the properties
stolen and unrecovered is erroneous for want of proof that the appellant, the
parent of the convicted juvenile therein, has conduced to the commission of the
offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the juvenile.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Undisputably,
juvenile courts have power, under certain circumstances, to order the parent of
a juvenile to pay a fine, damages, or costs instead of the juvenile. That power
is contained in section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30). The
relevant provisions, i.e. in section 345 (1) and (4), are 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">“345. (1)
Where a juvenile is charged before any court with any offence for the
commission of which a fine, damages or costs may be imposed, and the court is
of opinion that the case would be best met by the imposition of a fine,
damages, or costs, whether with or without any other punishment, the court may,
in any case, order that the fine, damages or costs awarded be paid by the parent
or guardian of the juvenile instead of by the juvenile, unless the court is
satisfied that the parent or guardian cannot be found or that he has not
conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of
the juvenile ... <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">(4) An
order under this section may be made against a parent or guardian who, having
been required to attend, has failed to do so, but, save as aforesaid, no such
order shall be made without giving the parent or guardian an opportunity of
being heard.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
firstly contended by the appellant’s counsel that the order made against his
client was erroneous because, although in court, the appellant was never heard
before the order was made. On the face of the record of proceedings his
complaint seems incontrovertible because the court’s notes for that day clearly
show the following as what transpired before it:<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">“Charges:
(1) unlawful entry<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:56.6pt;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">