MOHAMMED HAADI SAALIM vs THE REPUBLIC
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE R. B. BATU (J)
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted of stealing a car and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. He appealed, citing mental unsoundness, improper police procedures, and harsh sentencing. Despite an affidavit and ignored orders for psychiatric exams, the court found no initial evidence of mental issues. The appellant's plea of guilty was validated and the sentencing, initially dismissing his age and clean record, was deemed excessive. The sentence was then reduced to six years.
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