GOVINA vs. THE REPUBLIC [1979]DLHC1062

Date	1979-06-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1062

COUSSEY J.

AKRASI FOR THE APPELLANT.

KWAWUKUME (MISS) FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1979]DLHC1062
																																						<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" >GOVINA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 343<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:
11 JUNE 1979<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">

AKRASI 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 1.0pt 0in">

COUSSEY J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF COUSSEY J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant together with two others were charged on three counts of causing harm
contrary to section 69 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). He pleaded guilty
on the three counts with explanation. The prosecuting officer gave the facts.
Then the circuit court proceeded to convict the accused accordingly. But, before
passing sentence, the record of proceedings shows that, the accused made his
explanation. He said, “I did not inflict wounds on the policeman. I admit
shooting the third complainant.” The court then recorded, “In view of first
accused explanation, I reject his pleas of guilty on counts 1 and 2 ... First
accused convicted on count 3.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant has appealed to this court on the ground that it was wrong in law for
the court to hear his explanation after his conviction; and also to change his
plea, and to proceed to hear evidence on the counts which were changed by the
court on account of his explanation.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant relied on section 171 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act
30), which reads:<o:p></o:p>“(2) If
the plea is one of guilty the plea shall be recorded as nearly as possible in
the words used ... and the Court shall convict the accused person and pass
sentence or make an order against him, unless there shall appear to it
sufficient cause to the contrary.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I find
that the circuit court judge, having heard and determined the case and
convicted, was functus officio and had no power to allow the plea to be
changed: see the case of R. v. Campbell; Ex parte Hoy <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
better procedure in summary trials which will be safer is that in accordance
with normal procedure the facts of the case must be tendered to the court after
the plea had been taken and if these reveal that the defendant was not guilty
then his plea might be changed. It is most important that the accused should
understand precisely the nature of the offence he wishes to admit; that there
should be no ambiguity about the plea, and that the court should be watchful
that the facts as outlined do disclose that the defendant has properly pleaded guilty.
It follows from this that the charge should always be put to the defendant as
simply as possible, that the plea should be treated as one of not guilty if the
defendant appears in the least uncertain about it, or not fully aware of the
essential ingredients of the offence, and that the court should change a plea
of guilty to one of not guilty if at any time it appears that the defendant may
have pleaded guilty under a misapprehension as to the law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since a
plea of guilty is a conviction, it might be better for summary courts to be
hesitant to record it before hearing a defendant’s explanation to the charge.
The case of R. v. Grant (1936) 26 Cr.App.R. 8 illustrates the strictness of
registering a plea of guilty. For, Humphreys J. in that case stated at p. 12
that, “if the Court has registered a conviction, the only matter remaining for
the Court is that of sentence.” And in normal circumstances it must be
appreciated that a plea of autrefois convict is bound to succeed once a court
seeks to undo a plea of guilty which it has accepted. If a defendant pleads
guilty and then brings up excuses and justifications, let these be treated not
as a defence, but as mitigation.<o:p></o:p>The
appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence are quashed. The accused has
served some of the sentence of the abortive trial and therefore, I will acquit
and discharge him.<o:p></o:p>