DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.

On 18 December 1975, the juvenile court committed the appellant's son, a juvenile aged sixteen years, according to the appellant's estimation, to Borstal for three years and further ordered that the father of the juvenile offender should pay to the complainant ¢1,496.10 being the total cost of the articles alleged to have been stolen by the juvenile offender, Takyi Donkor. Before his sentence the juvenile offender had [p.375] pleaded guilty to various offences charged against him on five separate charge sheets. The chronological sequence of his criminal proclivities that was before the court ran like this: On 24 August 1975 he broke into an unoccupied building and stole louvre blades valued at ¢408.00 and he thus faced one count of unlawful entry and another count of stealing on charge sheet No. 21/75; on 25 August 1975 he was arrested for threatening and charged on charge sheet No. 20/75; on 5 October 1975 he stole various articles valued at ¢113.00 from a dwelling room and he was charged with stealing on charge sheet No. 25\75; on 4 November 1975 he stole a bed-sheet and two pillow cases valued at ¢14.00 from a dwelling-house and he was charged with stealing on charge sheet No. 22/75; finally, in the small hours of 14 November 1975 (the most dastardly of all his criminal activities) he broke into a kiosk and stole various wares totalling in value ¢1,496.00 and he was charged on charge sheet No. 24/75 on a count of unlawful entry and on another count of stealing. After pleading guilty to all these offences the probation officer submitted a report on the juvenile offender and it was upon the recommendation in his report that the above-mentioned order was made against the father. The appellant is aggrieved by the order made against him and he has accordingly appealed to this court to vacate it. His only ground of appeal is as follows:

"The court's order for payment by the appellant of the value of the properties stolen and unrecovered is erroneous for want of proof that the appellant, the parent of the convicted juvenile therein, has conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the juvenile."

Undisputably, juvenile courts have power, under certain circumstances, to order the parent of a juvenile to pay a fine, damages, or costs instead of the juvenile. That power is contained in section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30). The relevant provisions, i.e. in section 345 (1) and (4