In re SAMUEL NUNOO
1936
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Cor. PETRIDES
- C.J.
- BARTON
- DOORLY
- JJ
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
1936
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this appellate judgment authored by Barton, J., the court reviewed the summary committal of Samuel Nunoo, a witness at the Accra Assizes, for perjury under section 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The presiding judge, St. John Yates, J., had brought Nunoo before him to show cause for contempt based on wilful and corrupt perjury; Nunoo showed no cause and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. On appeal, Nunoo argued that there was no evidence on the record and that the record failed to specify the exact false words. The court cited Deane, C.J.’s reasoning and the Privy Council in Chang Hang Kin, affirming the summary nature of such proceedings. It held there was ample evidence and that clear notice of the gist suffices, dismissing the appeal.
The following judgment was delivered: BARTON, J.
The appellant, Samuel Nunoo, was a witness at a trial at the Assizes held in Accra and, at the close of the trial, was sentenced by the presiding Judge to six months' imprisonment with hard labour for perjury committed when giving his evidence in the witness box. The proceedings as recorded read as follows :-
" Samuel Nunoo is brought before me to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt in that he committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the box.
" He shows no cause.
" I sentence him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.
"ST. JOHN YATES,
"J."
The grounds of appeal argued before us were :-
(1) That there was no evidence on the record to justify the conviction, and
(2) That the conviction was bad in law in that the record contains no note of the specific words used by the witness which it is alleged were false.
The summary procedure which gives the Court power to commit a person to prison who has been guilty of perjury in a proceeding before it, is contained in section 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the relevant part of that section being as follows :-
" The Court, if it appears to it that a person has been guilty of perjury in any proceeding before it, may commit him to prison for any term not exceeding six months with or without hard labour, or fine him any sum not exceeding fifty pounds, or impose both such penalties upon him, in each case such as for a contempt of Court."
The section is a reproduction of section 44 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, now repealed, and that section was discussed at length by Deane, C.J., in his judgment in In re W. A. Asare Kisseadoo, Div. Court, 1929-31,49. In that case the learned Chief Justice referring to the judgment of the Privy Council in Chang Hang Kin 0Others v. The Judges of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, 25 T.L.R. 381, held that the words in the section" as for a contempt of Court" only indicated that the procedure shall be the same as in a case of contempt and do not mean that the accused cannot be committed for perjury under the section. In the case before the Privy Council the appellants had been committed to prison by the Chief Justice of Hong Kong for corrupt perjury in open Court under the provisions of the corresponding summary procedure in force in Hong Kong. The facts showed that after the verdict was given the Chief Justice directed the eight witnesses, the appellants, to be called forward and then informed