REGINA v. MENSAH AND OTHERS
1960
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- VAN LARE
- J.A.
- GRANVILLE SHARP
- J.A.
- SARKODEE-ADOO
- J
Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Judicial Sentencing
1960
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal of the first and third appellants was allowed due to procedural errors, specifically the failure to record a clear finding of guilt before sentencing the third appellant. The second appellant's appeal was dismissed.
Van Lare, J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. (After dealing with the appeals of the first and second appellants he continued).
The sixth accused (that is the third appellant) was sentenced without any clear finding of guilt having been recorded against him, in violation of statutory requirements. It is impossible to discover in respect of what offence he was sentenced. The charges against him were two—housebreaking (Count 3), and stealing (Count 4). He was discharged on the housebreaking charge, for in the course of his judgment the learned Commissioner said, "There being a doubt as to the part he played with respect to count 3, the benefit of it is given him." With regard to the stealing charge, the learned Commissioner continued as follows:—
“Not so however with respect to count 4. From the highly suspicious circumstances in which he took in the exhibits and the manner in which he tried to secure them and himself from the police it is quite clear that he knew the exhibits had been stolen. Having once been found out, like the first accused person he affected to co-operate with the Police with the probable hope of being used as a witness for the Crown. It is interesting to note that there is a considerable degree of intimacy admitted by them between the first, second, third, fourth and sixth accused persons."
All three assessors had expressed the opinion that the sixth accused was not guilty of stealing; two, however, were of opinion that he was guilty [p.55] of the offence of receiving. The verdict in a trial with the aid of assessors is that of the judge, not that of the assessors; no question of the majority opinion of the assessors ever arises. The learned Commissioner failed to make any clear finding whether or not this appellant was guilty of stealing, nor did he ever indicate whether or not he conformed with the opinions of the two assessors that this appellant was guilty of receiving; yet he was bound to give his own judgment as required by section 300 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 10) in a trial with assessors. These subsections are as follows:—
“300. (2) The Judge shall then give judgment, and in so doing shall not be bound to conform with the opinions of the assessors, but he shall record his judgment in writing and in every case such judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision, and shall be dated and signed by the Judge at the time of pronoun