Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 7, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.
The appellant was charged with stealing and was found guilty after he had pleaded not guilty and after the prosecution had closed their case and the appellant had stood mute throughout without cross-examining the prosecution witnesses or giving any evidence from the witness-box or statement from the dock.
After the first prosecution witness had completed his examination-in-chief the accused stood mute. The learned circuit judge then recorded: "Accused has been certified by the medical officer as fit to plead." It is not clear from the record whether the court asked the appellant whether he wished to cross-examine the witness and he stood mute. It is also not recorded when this medical certificate was made available to the court. If it was not before the court, from where did the learned circuit judge get his information?
The same episode followed after the second witness for the prosecution had finished his examination-in-chief. When the prosecution closed their case, the court called upon the appellant to make his defence under section 174 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30). The court then recorded as follows: “Accused refuses to make statement. Accused refused to give evidence. "The judgment of the court was delivered immediately afterwards with brevity, precision and conciseness as follows: "I find the prosecution case proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I find the accused guilty and I convict him accordingly."
[p.1006]
It is not possible to imagine what was operating in the mind of the learned circuit judge when he reacted to the appellant's muteness by recording that the appellant had been certified by the medical officer that he was fit to plead. Did the appellant's mute condition strike the learned judge as a condition symptomatic with the quiescence of a person suffering from an unsound mind? What was the necessity for adverting to a medical certificate?
Section 133 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), provides:
“133. (1) When in the course of a trial or preliminary proceedings the Court has reason to believe that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, it shall enquire into the fact of such unsoundness by causing him to be medically examined and shall thereafter take medical and any other available evidence regarding the state of the accused's mind."
It follows from the words of the section that the court may have reason to believe that the accuse
AI Generated Summary
Archer J. allowed the appeal of an accused convicted of stealing in a circuit court. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, stood mute throughout the prosecution’s case, neither cross‑examining witnesses nor presenting a defence. The trial judge recorded that a medical officer had certified the accused fit to plead, yet relied on that certificate without taking sworn medical testimony, and proceeded to convict after the accused refused to make a statement or give evidence. On appeal, Archer J. held that section 133(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates a formal inquiry and sworn medical evidence where unsoundness of mind is suspected; reliance on a certificate or oral information is impermissible. Section 138 was also highlighted as a safeguard when an accused cannot understand the proceedings. The judge declared the trial a nullity, refused to order a retrial in light of the appellant’s treatment for hallucinations and substantial time served, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence, and discharged the appellant, noting the charge technically remains pending and urging the State to consider whether further prosecution—over items as trivial as two old chamber pots—is warranted.