R. v. GRUMAH

(His lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:-)

The only point for decision in this appeal is whether the verdict should have been one of guilty but insane.

The appellant was described as really fond of the children, against whom it was impossible to imagine that he might have malice. The landlord, father of the deceased child, testified to the appellant's general good character, and also to what he (the landlord) believed to be the state of the appellant's mind when he committed the act in respect of which he was charged. In his opinion, based upon the appellant's behaviour during the four days preceding the commission of the offence, the appellant was insane. He testified that the appellant

(1) without any reason whatsoever decided to stop work and to return to his home-town;

(2) refused money to pay his fare home;

(3) unceremoniously disappeared from the house to the surprise of the inmates;

(4) did not in fact return to his home-town, but sojourned in the forest, and returned to the house after some days with scratches all over his body and in torn clothes;

(5) refused to accept better clothes offered him.

These points do not appear to have been given any consideration in the summing-up or in the judgment of the learned trial-Judge, who rejected the defence of insanity because the appellant was said to be "calm on the morning of the incident."

We are of opinion that the reason given for the rejection of the plea of insanity is not well founded, and that the learned trial-Judge failed to take a proper view of the facts. It is commonplace that a mentally deranged or an insane person can be "calm." The learned Judge appears to have misdirected himself by non-direction on the question of "temporary insanity" or a lucid interval, and we think [p.309] that had he directed the assessors (and himself) properly on the points we have discussed, the verdict would most probably have been one of guilty but insane.

It appears to this Court upon a critical examination of the evidence that, although the appellant is guilty of the act charged against him, he was insane at the time the act was done so as not to be responsible according to law for his actions. Acting, therefore, in accordance with section 11 (4) of the Court of Appeal Ordinance, we quash the sentence passed at the trial, and we order that the appellant be kept in custody as a criminal lunatic at the Mental Hospital, Accra, and that he do receive the necessary treatment, until the Governor-Ge