Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 10, 1976
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON AG.J.
At the trial the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing and was convicted. In passing sentence the district magistrate grade II, Mr. A. Z. Kpemaal, addressed himself as follows:
[p.79]
"Before sentencing the accused, I take into consideration the seriousness of the offence and the incessant bid by the government to curb out this undesirable vice within our society and I sentence the accused to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. The accused is also fined ¢150.00 or in default nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. He will also sign a bond for ¢400.00 with a surety to be of good behaviour for two years after his sentence, or in default a fine of ¢200.00 or eleven months' imprisonment with hard labour. Sentence serves as a deterrent for others."
This meant that if the appellant was unable to obtain funds to pay off the fines and did not secure a surety for his bond he would serve a total of three year and eight months' imprisonment with hard labour as a first offender from the sentence of a district court grade II. It is no wonder the appellant has come to this court complaining among other things that "the sentence imposed by the lay magistrate is unlawful."
The sentencing powers of district magistrates for crime are regulated by section 39 of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372). Subsections (2) (b) and (4) of that section provide that:
"(2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, a District Court shall, in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, not impose . . .
(b) in the case of a District Court (Grade II) a term of imprisonment exceeding one year or a fine exceeding ¢500.00 or both ..."
"(4) Where under any enactment increased punishment may be imposed upon any person previously convicted of a crime, a District Court (Grade I or Grade II) may impose such increased punishment, or twice the maximum punishments prescribed by subsection (2) whichever is the lesser."
(The emphasis is mine.)
As the appellant was a first offender the district magistrate was not empowered under subsection (4) to impose twice the maximum sentence of one year. The sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour imposed by the district magistrate grade II was therefore in excess of the power of sentence conferred on that magistrate. That sentence is therefore set aside.
Section 39 (2) (b) of the Courts Act, 1971, empowers a district magistrate (grade II) to impose a fine not exceeding ¢500.00 in addition to th
AI Generated Summary
Justice Hayfron AG.J reviewed an appeal from a District Court (Grade II) sentence imposed by Mr. A. Z. Kpemaal after the appellant pleaded guilty to stealing. The magistrate had ordered two years’ imprisonment with hard labour, fines including ¢150 with nine months’ default imprisonment, and a recognizance bond of ¢400 with a surety for two years coupled with a ¢200 fine or eleven months’ default imprisonment. The appellant, a first offender involved in “pose pose,” challenged the sentence as unlawful. Interpreting section 39 of the Courts Act, 1971 and sections 297(3) and 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, the court held the magistrate exceeded his powers: imprisonment may not exceed one year for a first offender, default for fines is capped at three months, and section 299 does not authorize fines for failure to enter recognizance. The court set aside the unlawful orders and substituted a twelve-month term.