Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
September 3, 2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
On 18th October, 2015, the Appellant was convicted on one count of stealing one Mitsubishi Pajero car valued GH¢80. 000. 00. He was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment.
He appealed against both the conviction and sentence on the grounds that: • The convict was not mentally sound to stand trial. • The convicts’ statement to police was not taken professionally. • The sentence was harsh.
On his behalf counsel narrates that on 4th November, 2011; an application to the Circuit Court for medical examination of the appellant was rejected.
On 11th November, 2011, the Applicant’s mother swore to an affidavit before this court that her son was not mentally sound.
Orders to the court for an examination of Appellant at Pantang Psychiatric Hospital have not been complied with.
Counsel submits that on the authorities a mental disorder severe enough that prevents a person from having legal capacity excuses that person from civil and criminal respondent.
He cites ASAREVS. THE REPUBLIC (1978) GLR 193 CA, DABLA VS THE STATE (1963)2 GLR 14 SC AND COLLINS VS THE REPUBLIC (1987/88) 2 GLR 52 CA.
It appears correct that the orders of this court to have the Appellant examined by a Psychiatrist were not complied with.
Under Section 133(1) at 30/60“When in the course of a trial or preliminary proceedings the court has reason to believe that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, it shall enquire into the fact of such unsoundness, in causing him to be medically examined and shall thereafter take medical and any other available evidence regarding the state of the accused’s mind.
”The problem with Appellants first ground of appeal is that at the time Appellant was put before the court; the court itself had no reason to doubt the soundness of his mind and there was no other available evidence proffered to the court.
It was two months after the conviction that an application was sent before the court and later before this court claiming that the Appellant was mentally unsound.
Unsoundness of an accused’s mind developed after a conviction is not exculpatory at the offence committed.
The prosecution is also accused of unprofessionally taking the appellants statement and the court of being in a hurry to convict the Appellant.
From the record there was no need to lead evidence.
The evidence led, though serving to show that the Appellant did commit the offence was superfluous.
The record shows that when Appellant was called up
AI Generated Summary
Justice R. B. Batu of the High Court reviewed an appeal from a 2015 conviction and 15-year sentence for stealing a Mitsubishi Pajero valued at GH¢80,000. The theft occurred when the convicted individual entered a vehicle at a fuel station and drove off; a chase ensued and the vehicle was recovered, albeit damaged. On appeal, counsel contended that a psychiatric examination should have been ordered, that the police statement was unprofessionally taken, and that the sentence was harsh. The court found no contemporaneous reason at trial to suspect unsoundness of mind, emphasizing that any mental issues arising after conviction do not excuse the offense. It ruled that divergent languages between the police statement and trial evidence do not establish impropriety. Because the individual pled guilty simpliciter, conviction and sentence were mandatory under Section 171(2). Considering youth, first-offender status, and recovery of the vehicle, the court reduced the sentence to six years.