JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.
This is a case which illustrates the problem posed in the judgment in Amadu Fulani v. The Republic [1968] G.L.R. 66 which I have just read) even better. The appellant was charged before the circuit court with unlawful entry with intention to cause damage to property and causing damage to property. He was proved to have set fire to property worth ¢657.00. Now either such charges are serious enough to warrant severe punishment when proved or they are not. If they are not then a summary trial would be the suitable mode of trial otherwise a trial on indictment seems to be indicated.
There was no record of any previous convictions against the appellant. Thus tit the end of the case, there was nothing to make the case graver than what the prosecution set out to prove and presumably outlined in their opening address. There was nothing to show that the gravity of the offence only emerged in the course of the case, or worse, that it was hidden until the end. Yet the appellant was u on conviction, sentenced to four years' imprisonment. If he had been tried on indictment it is most improbable that a higher sentence would have been imposed. But section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), presumes that case of this nature being tried summarily, might turn out to be unsuitable for summary trial and gives the steps which could be taken to committal it into committal proceedings with a view to having, it tried on indictment. It is legitimate to ask what the point of having the case converted to a trial on indictment is, if the offence however serious could be adequately punished after a summary trial? This is the crux of the matter which Mrs. Amankwah's argument has, I think, been unable to meet.
[p.80]
The sentence must have been imposed with regard to the value of the property alleged to have been damaged. But the values stated for some of them cannot be correct. For example amongst the things burnt were thirteen ten pesewa lotto booklets valued at ¢130.00. The face value on these tickets may be ten pesewas each, that is, anyone who bought a ticket, bought a chance at ten pesewas, and if the whole set were bought, ¢30.00 would be paid for them. But that does not represent the value of the tickets unsold. And it appeared that the complainant was a lotto ticket seller. Should she lose the booklet, all she would have lost is the cost of printing the tickets, not their face value. Similarly one 50 pesewas lotto booklet was val
