Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 8, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district magistrate sitting at Mampong Akwapim. The appeal is one against conviction on the ground that the judgment cannot be supported having regard to the evidence on record and that the conviction is wrong in law.
The case against the appellant is that acting in the execution of his duties as a public officer investigating a case of assault he allowed his conduct as a public officer to be influenced by the demand, and the acceptance, of the sum of sixteen new cedis in order to stop the prosecution of a case then before the court.
Counsel for the appellant maintains that from the evidence it would appear that the appellant was trapped. The evidence does not support the conviction and he referred to several parts of the evidence to support this contention, relying finally on Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases (36th ed.), and Brannan v. Peek [1947] 2 All E.R. 572, D.C.
Counsel for the Republic argued that there was sufficient evidence upon which the court could come to the decision to which it came, citing Nweke v. R. (1955) 15 W.A.C.A. 29 and Diamantides v. Chief Inspector of Mines (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 94.
From the arguments of counsel and from a reading of the record it seems to me that the issue for determination is whether the conduct of the appellant in this case is consistent with his innocence. The appellant before the court below stated:
"Immediately he entered my office he placed the amount on a table in the office and left. I shouted for him, 'Come! come!' All that he said was that he was going to call a complainant in a case in which the third prosecution witness was involved. He never came. Not quite five minutes after the fourth prosecution witness had left, the second and third prosecution witnesses came to my office. I took possession of the money as I was calling the fourth prosecution witness to come. Immediately the second prosecution witness came to my office, the second prosecution witness called me and after producing a piece of paper from his pocket told me that the third prosecution witness had made a report of extortion of an amount of sixteen (16) new cedis against me. On the paper was written the serial numbers of the [p.627] currency notes. I denied extorting the third prosecution witness, but said that it was the third prosecution witness and the fourth prosecution witness who came to my office to offer me that am
AI Generated Summary
Justice Charles Crabbe considered an appeal by a public officer stationed at Aburi who had been convicted by the district magistrate at Mampong Akwapim for allowing his official conduct to be influenced by payment of sixteen new cedis to halt a prosecution. The complainant, teacher Eric Amoah Kwakye, approached the district superintendent, who warned the officer and later supplied additional cedis and recorded serial numbers for a controlled delivery. The officer acknowledged the money was placed on his desk and admitted keeping it in his pocket, allegedly to return it, and the serial numbers matched upon recovery. On appeal, counsel argued the officer was trapped and attacked the evidentiary sufficiency, while the Republic maintained the conviction was supported, citing regional appellate authority. The court distinguished Brannan v. Peek’s admonition against police committing offences, and aligned with Diamantides in holding that police lawfully feigned participation to observe and gather evidence. Finding the appellant’s conduct inconsistent with innocence and his statement a confession, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.