Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 10, 1976
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON AG.J.
The appellant on being charged with the offence of assault pleaded that he was guilty. The trial court, without hearing the facts of the case from the prosecutor, proceeded to convict and, subsequently, to sentence the accused to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. After the conviction but before sentence the court heard and recorded the facts and then heard the appellant who stated that he regretted assaulting his own headman.
[p.82]
The appellant has appealed on the ground that the learned trial judge was wrong in law in convicting him, and relied on section 171 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30). That subsection, to the extent that it applies to the present case, reads as follows:
"171. (2) If the plea is one of guilty the plea shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used,… and the Court shall convict the accused person and pass sentence or make an order against him, unless there shall appear to it sufficient cause to the contrary."
(The emphasis is mine.) In State v. Ankomah, High Court, Sunyani, 31 January 1966, unreported; digested in (1966) C.C. 58, Hayfron-Benjamin J. (as he then was) held that where the accused pleads guilty to a charge it is essential that the trial court in a summary trial must hear the facts of the case from the prosecutor before proceeding to convict the accused otherwise the court is disabled from determining whether there is sufficient cause to the contrary.
In this case the trial court after taking the plea did not hear of the facts upon which the prosecution relied to prosecute the accused. The court was therefore not in a position to determine at that stage whether there were facts which justified a conviction. It is not open to a court to convict an accused person and then to proceed to find facts which would justify the conviction. The court's duty is to find out whether there are facts which justify conviction before entering a conviction.
It has been argued that no substantial miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by the procedure adopted by the trial court in this case. This overlooks the point that after conviction it is only open to the court to find out whether the accused has any previous convictions, at which stage the prosecutor is also at liberty to state such matters as will assist the court in arriving at a just sentence. Thereafter the accused is at liberty to put in a plea in mitigation of sentence. The facts stated by the prosecuti
AI Generated Summary
An appellate court reviewed a summary conviction arising from an incident in which the accused assaulted his own headman. Although the accused pleaded guilty to the assault charge, the trial judge convicted immediately without hearing the prosecutor’s factual narrative. Only after entering conviction did the court hear and record the facts, and it later imposed a two-month sentence with hard labour. On appeal, HAYFRON AG.J interpreted section 171(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), and relied on State v. Ankomah to hold that, in summary trials, the court must hear the prosecutor’s facts before convicting so it can consider whether there is sufficient cause not to convict despite a guilty plea. The court rejected the argument that the error caused no substantial miscarriage of justice. It set aside the conviction and sentence and, given time already served, declined to order retrial, instead entering an acquittal and discharge.