JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.
In this appeal the only ground canvassed on behalf of the appellant is that of misdirection by the magistrate on the law pertaining to the evidence of an accomplice. Without going into the facts at length which are very clear on the record, there are certain aspects of this case which need to be commented upon. The principal witness in this case, one Acquah, was rightly found by the trial magistrate to be an accomplice in this case where ten iron rods being the property of the Posts and Telecommunication Department, Tema, were allegedly stolen by the appellant. Both the accused and Acquah were at the material time employees of the Posts and Telecommunication Department, and the evidence shows that both the accused and Acquah were living in one house and that it was Acquah who in fact conveyed the iron rods to the welder for work on the windows of that house.
On these facts, the learned trial magistrate made the following findings:
[p.32]
“. . .to that extent he was an accomplice but I am satisfied, in full awareness of the danger in acting on the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration that the first prosecution witness is not only a truthful witness but also that his testimony commands corroboration sufficient to warrant the accused person's conviction.”
The law is quite clear on what is required as to corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice. This is what it says in Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice (35th ed.), para. 930 (4):
"Absence of corroboration. The rule that a judge must give the jury a proper warning as to the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, although it is a rule of practice, now has the force of a rule of law. If such a warning is not given the Court of Criminal Appeal will quash the conviction, even if in fact there be ample corroborative evidence, unless the court can apply the proviso to section 4 (1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (see post, s. 939): Davies v. D.P.P. [1954] A.C. 378; 38 Cr.App.R. 11. See also R. v. Tate [1908] 2 K.B. 680; 1 Cr.App.R. 39; R . v. Baskerville [1916] 2 K.B. 658; 12 Cr.App.R. 81; R. v. Charavanamuttu, 22 Cr.App.R. 1; R. v. Lewis, 26 Cr.App.R. 110; R. v. Moore, 28 Cr.App.R. 111; R. v. Savory, 29 Cr.App.R. 1.
Where also matters which cannot be corroboration are treated as being so, the court may quash the conviction. See R. v. Martin, Ansell & Ross, 24 Cr.App.R. 177. If after the proper caution by the jud
