Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
October 21, 1986
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
This is an appeal lodged against sentence by the appellant. The appellant was arraigned before the District Court Grade II, Nkoranza charged on two counts of unlawful entry and stealing contrary to sections 154 and 124 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), respectively. Count two showed that the items stolen by the appellant were a pair of canvas shoes, one bedsheet, pillow case, and one tape recorder, all totalling ¢7,800.
When the appellant pleaded guilty to both charges, the trial magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour on count one and 24 months' imprisonment with hard labour on count two, sentences to run consecutively. Accordingly the accused was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment with hard labour.
It is the second sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour with counsel for the appellant argues is in excess of the magistrate's jurisdiction since by section 39 (2) (b) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), the magistrate's jurisdiction is limited to twelve months. Counsel further submitted that since the acts of the appellant were made in execution of one criminal purpose or design, the sentence should have been concurrent and not consecutive as ordered by the trial magistrate. Finally counsel submitted that since the appellant is a young first offender, the magistrate should have imposed a fine on the appellant instead of a straight jail sentence and accordingly invited the court to deal leniently with his client.
In reply counsel for the Republic associated himself with the points or submission made by counsel for the appellant.
On the question of jurisdiction of the magistrate to impose 24 months on an accused person, I entirely agree with counsel that the trial magistrate grade II has no jurisdiction to impose a term of 24 months on the appellant in view of the provisions of section 39 (2) of Act 372 which mandatorily limits the said district court grade II to the imposition of twelve months’ imprisonment. Accordingly since the trial magistrate lacked jurisdiction to impose the said 24 months’ imprisonment, it seems the said sentence is null and void and it is accordingly set aside.
Let me now address myself to the query raised by counsel to the effect that the sentences should have been made concurrent and not cumulative since the acts of the appellant formed one continuous action done in execution of the same design.
After carefully reading the parti
AI Generated Summary
Mensah Ag. J. determined an appeal against sentence arising from a conviction in the District Court Grade II at Nkoranza for unlawful entry and stealing under the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The appellant pleaded guilty and received twelve months on count one and twenty‑four months on count two, ordered consecutively. On appeal, both sides recognized that section 39(2) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372) limits a Grade II magistrate’s jurisdiction to twelve months, making the 24‑month sentence void. The court further found the offenses formed one continuous transaction executed under a single design, mandating concurrent sentences under sections 302(a) and 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), consistent with Adjei v. The Republic. Although the appellant was a young first offender, the seriousness and attempted sale of the property, amid rising theft in Nkoranza, justified custody. The court substituted twelve months on each count, concurrent, and allowed the appeal in part.