ASUMANG vs. THE REPUBLIC [1986]DLHC883

Date	1986-10-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLHC883

MENSAH AG. J.

KOFI OPPONG FOR THE APPELLANT.

OWOO FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1986]DLHC883
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ASUMANG<o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, SUNYANI} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 753<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
24 OCTOBER 1986<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

KOFI OPPONG 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">

MENSAH AG. J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSAH AG. J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal lodged by the appellant against his conviction and sentence.<o:p></o:p>The main
grounds of appeal were that the judgment or order is unreasonable and cannot be
supported by the evidence and that the sentence of twelve months is harsh.
Though the petition talks of additional grounds to be filed on the receipt of
the record of proceedings, yet up to the time of the hearing of the substantive
appeal, no such additional grounds have been filed by counsel.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would
therefore seem to this court that the submissions made by counsel to the court
do not reflect the main grounds of appeal because in this case, the appellant
pleaded guilty and was convicted on his plea. Yet counsel’s argument was that
since the appellant gave an explanation to the trial magistrate which amounted
to a plea of not guilty which the magistrate failed to record, the conviction
entered by the trial court as well as the sentence were null and void. I
allowed counsel to proceed with his submission in view of the legal
implications involved, having regard to the record of proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the respondent in a short reply submitted that the conviction was proper
because by convicting the appellant on his own plea, it meant the trial court
did not accept the explanation of the appellant.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the appellant did not cite any statute nor decided case to support his
contention that if the accused pleads guilty and gives an explanation which
amounts to a plea of not guilty, the trial court should enter a plea of not
guilty on his behalf and if this was not done, then the conviction is void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
interesting to note that before the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372) was enacted in
1971, section 324 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30) stated that
no appeal shall be entertained against conviction by an accused person who has
pleaded guilty and has been convicted on his plea. But section 114 and the
Third Schedule to Act 372, repealed the said mandatory provision mentioned
(supra). And now section 19 of Act 372 purports to give to an accused who has
pleaded guilty and has been convicted, the right of appeal to the High Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But it is
my considered opinion that to reopen a case by an appellate court where the
appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted, there must be exceptional
circumstances to warrant it. There are many such exceptional circumstances but
for the purposes of this appeal, this court would limit itself to a situation
where an accused person at the lower court pleaded guilty and offered an
explanation which practically amounts to a defence and where the accused
person’s answer to the charge shows an ambiguity as to his plea. In the case of
Ofei v. The State [1965] G.L.R. 680 at 686, S.C. it was held: “the law is that
a court must not take a defendant to have admitted his guilt unless he does so
in unmistakable terms.” Then in the English case of R. v. Golathan (1915) 11
Cr. App. R. 79, C.C.A. the appellant was arraigned on a charge of entering a
dwelling house by night with intent to steal. He pleaded guilty to entering but
added that he did not enter for the purpose of stealing. In quashing his
conviction, Lord Reading L.C.J. said at 80:<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-sha</main>