AMOAH v. THE STATE
1966
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- OLLENNU
- AZU CRABBE
- LASSEY JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Judicial Procedure
1966
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court judge, Baidoo J., erred in not quashing the conviction of the appellant despite concluding that the conviction was bad. The High Court has jurisdiction to quash wrongful convictions and should do so to prevent miscarriages of justice. The appeal is allowed, the conviction is quashed, and the appellant is acquitted and discharged.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.A.
Ollennu J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. This appeal was argued on 25 October 1966, and was allowed, and we now give reasons for the decision therein. The appellant was convicted by the District Court, Effiduase, of the offence of being on premises for an unlawful purpose, contrary to section 155 of the Criminal Code, 19601; the alleged unlawful purpose is "to steal." He was then committed to the High Court, Kumasi, under section 3 (1) of the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963,2 for sentence. The learned judge of the High Court, Baidoo J., after holding full and proper inquiries as should be held under section 2 of the Act came to the conclusion that the conviction was bad, that the verdict was not warranted by law, and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. With that view we are in entire agreement. But instead of quashing the conviction, and acquitting and discharging the appellant as we think he is in law entitled to do, the learned judge took the view that he had no jurisdiction in a case committed to him under Act 192 to interfere with the conviction or the merits of the case, and addressed himself as follows:
"It is rather unfortunate that the matter is not on appeal before me. The accused has been already convicted by the learned district magistrate and I am required under section 1 (c) of Act 192 to hold an inquiry to find out whether by reason of the accused's criminal habits or tendencies or of his association with persons of bad character, it is expedient for the protection of the public that he should be detained in custody for a substantial period."
We are of the opinion that this view of the law held by the learned judge is erroneous. The duty of a court is to do justice, a court therefore should not shut its eyes at obvious injustice.
The jurisdiction of a court to pass sentence upon a person, i.e. to punish, can only be exercised where a person has been lawfully convicted; lawful conviction is therefore a condition precedent to a sentence. A sentence which has been passed when there has been no lawful conviction is illegal. Therefore, a court vested with jurisdiction to pass a sentence at first instance, or confirm, quash or vary a sentence on appeal, is under a legal duty to satisfy itself first of all as to the lawfulness of the conviction before it should exercise its jurisdiction to pass, confirm, or vary it.
In each of the following three cases: Benson v. Commissioner of Police