JONATHAN ADE OLUJOMOYE
August 4, 1936
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- PETRIDES
- C.J.
- BARTON
- DOORLY
- JJ
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
August 4, 1936
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
The following joint judgment was delivered :-
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST, BARTON AND DOORLY, JJ.
Appellant and his wife were charged before a Judge and jury under section 309 of the Criminal Code for that they" without lawful excuse did have in their possession things specially contrived for the purpose of committing a crime relating to coin." Appellant was convicted and his wife acquitted of this offence.
The "things" referred to in the information were pieces of paper cut to the size of a West African currency note, some of which bore Arabic characters similar to those to be found on the back of a currency note.
One of the grounds of appeal relied on was that the words " any instrument or thing" in section 309 should be construed ejusdem generis, and that if this were done it was clear that the pieces of paper were not " things" within the meaning of section 309, and that accordingly no offence had been proved under that section.
Maxwell, on the Interpretation of Statutes, 7th edition, p. 289, says:-
•• If it can be seen from a wide inspection of the scope of the legislation that the general words, notwithstanding that they follow particular words, are nevertheless to be construed generally, effect must be given to the intention of the legislature as gathered from the larger survey."
Bearing this principle in mind we are satisfied that the word " thing" is not to be restricted to a thing ejusdem generis with" instrument," but to be regarded as applying to anything specially contrived or adapted for purposes of forgery or of committing any crime relating to coin.
Another ground relied on is that these pieces of paper were not found in the possession of the appellant, but in that of his wife. It is clear that actual manual possession of goods by a defendant is not necessary to the completion of the offence of receiving; it is sufficient if they are in the actual possession of a person over whom the defendant has a control, so that they would be forthcoming if ordered; R. v. Smith, Dears. 494, and R. v. Gleed, 12 Cr. App. R. 32. In our opinion the same principle applies to " possession" under section 309 of the Criminal Code. There was in our opinion ample evidence of possession by the appellant to justify the verdict.
We are not satisfied that there has been misdirection by the learned trial Judge on this or any other point.
The only remaining ground of appeal of substance relied upon by the appellant was that the trial Judge wrongly allowed ev
AI Generated Summary
In a joint appellate judgment in the Gold Coast, Chief Justice Petrides with Justices Barton and Doorly dismissed an appeal from a conviction under section 309 of the Criminal Code. The case involved pieces of paper cut to the size of West African currency notes, some bearing Arabic characters akin to those on the note’s reverse. The appellant argued that “any instrument or thing” should be read ejusdem generis, excluding the paper pieces, and further contended he lacked possession because the items were found with his wife. Applying Maxwell on statutory interpretation, the court construed “thing” broadly and held that items specially contrived for coin-related crimes are covered. On possession, drawing on receiving cases (R v Smith; R v Gleed), the court held that control over another’s possession suffices. The court rejected claims of misdirection and, relying on Phipson and cases including R v Crippen and R v Smith, upheld the trial judge’s discretion under section 271 to admit rebuttal evidence. Noting testimony from Mary Kobla, Superintendent Amaview, and Sergeant Ansah, it found no miscarriage of justice and dismissed the appeal.