R v. KWADWO MENSAH

This appellant was convicted by a jury before Simpson J., sitting at Accra on the 23rd April, 1959, for the murder of one Kwabena Ahunu at Okrakwadjo on the 14th December, 1958.

[p.311]

The appellant raised as a defence the issue of the state of his mind at the material time, and he accompanied this with a complete denial that he was even in the village at the time when Ahunu was killed. As to this latter contention, it is so contrary to the evidence that learned Counsel for the appellant made no point of it at the hearing of the appeal before us. There can be no doubt whatever that it was the appellant who killed Ahunu. The real contest between the Crown and the appellant was upon the issue of his alleged insanity, and upon this the facts placed before the jury were, apart from medical evidence, as follows (his lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:—)

The killing in this case appears to have been entirely motiveless. No witness knew of any previous association or quarrel between the appellant and his victim. The appellant in evidence denied ever knowing such a person. He was not a very satisfactory witness, and though persisting in his denials as to his presence in the village or as to his having killed anyone, he appeared to wish that his questioning under cross-examination should be brought to an early end.

The picture is of a man who had apparently run amok. At the preliminary hearing before the Magistrate the appellant was, as the learned Judge said later at the trial, "suspected of being not entirely normal," and it was this that persuaded the learned Judge to adjourn the trial, so that the appellant might be examined by a Psychiatrist. He was examined accordingly. The Psychiatrist, Dr. E. F. Forster, who later gave evidence, said in examination-in-chief that after a 45-minute examination of the appellant he thought that he was then trying to feign madness, in order to escape from responsibility for the crime with which he was being charged. The witness then, after describing what are known to be the general symptoms of various forms of insanity (including epilepsy) gave it as his opinion that the appellant might have been temporarily insane at the time of the attack upon the deceased. He said again when cross-examined, "Having examined the accused, and heard his evidence, I would say it is possible that he may have been mentally disturbed." He added that a delusion directed against a particular person does not change and become directed aga