Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 4, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.
After considering the evidence and the submissions by counsel on both sides I have come to the conclusion that this appeal against conviction should be dismissed. Substantially the issue was one of fact, namely whether or not a large quantity of blankets found with a co-accused and one other person had been stolen by the appellant. There was evidence coming from the co-accused that the appellant had brought the blankets to him to dispose of. Corroboration of this evidence came from others who said they had seen the appellant arrive in a lorry at a store which was under the control of the co-accused and that the blankets had been off-loaded from that lorry. There was also evidence that blankets of a similar kind and in similar packing had been lost from a certain government bungalow where they were held. It has been argued that the evidence connecting the appellant with the blankets was suspect. But this was a matter for the trial judge. What evidence there was, if believed, was sufficient to establish his connection with the transaction beyond doubt. Admittedly the evidence identifying the blankets found as the blankets lost was circumstantial. But it has not been unknown for the prosecutor to be unable to swear positively to the loss of the articles said to have been stolen. Nor will the prosecution for stealing necessarily fail for lack of positive proof that the property found on the prisoner and alleged to have been stolen is the prosecutor's: see, for [p.205] example, R. v. Burton (1854) 6 Cox C.C 293 and R. v. Mockford (1868) 11 Cox C.C. 16.
Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the trial judge failed to consider the defence in that after stating its effect he omitted to make an express finding on it. According to this argument the judge must go beyond summarising the defence to give an opinion as to whether it is to be believed or reasonably probable or not. I do not think that the judge's opinion on the defence need be stated in any particular formula of words. The maturity of a judge’s consideration of a case does not depend on the invariable inclusion of words like, "I do not believe the defence or think it reasonably probable." After all he is not in his judgment instructing minds untutored in the law on the criteria they have to apply in arriving at their conclusion, as he would be doing in a summing-up to a jury or to assessors. Here he is stating his reasons for his own conclusion after those criteria h
AI Generated Summary
Justice AMISSAH J.A. dismissed an appeal against conviction for theft of a large quantity of blankets but reduced the sentence. The prosecution’s case rested on a co-accused’s testimony that the appellant brought the blankets to him to dispose of, corroborated by witnesses who saw the appellant’s lorry off-load blankets at a store controlled by the co-accused, and supported by evidence that similar blankets were missing from a government bungalow. Although identification of the blankets was circumstantial, the court emphasized that theft prosecutions need not fail for lack of positive proof of ownership, citing authorities. The appellant’s complaint that the trial judge failed to expressly “find” on the defence was rejected: judges need not use formulaic words where the record shows application of the beyond reasonable doubt standard. The conviction stood, but given the appellant’s first-offender status and Army service, the sentence was reduced from one year to six months.