JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.
Sowah J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. Amadu Fulani was on the 20 January 1967 after a summary trial by the Circuit Court, Accra, convicted of the offences of conspiracy, unlawful entry and stealing property valued at ¢3,462.00 and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with hard labour after the prosecution had given his antecedents of previous convictions and sentences.
He appealed to the High Court, Accra, on both conviction and sentence but the appeal on conviction was dismissed whereupon the learned judge of the High Court called upon the senior state attorney to support the sentence of seven years' imprisonment since the trial of the appellant was summary. The arguments advanced by counsel for the State did not particularly impress the learned judge and, with respect, we do not consider them impressive. In a long and reasoned judgment, the learned judge held that the circuit judge was wrong in imposing a sentence of seven years after a summary trial; further, that a circuit court trying a case summarily and for that matter, a High Court had no jurisdiction to impose a sentence higher than a court of summary jurisdiction and accordingly reduced the sentence to two years' imprisonment.
The State has appealed on the grounds which may be compendiously stated, namely, that the learned judge erred in his interpretation of the jurisdiction of the circuit court and the High Court in relation to their powers of sentence after a summary trial. We had the benefit of the reasoned judgment of the judge and of arguments of Mr. Afreh who was invited to assist the court in support of the judgment and of Mr. Kisseih, senior state attorney, for the appellant.
[p.46]
It is not out of disrespect that we do not repeat counsel's argument in full. Mr. Afreh, in the main, sought to support the reasoning of the learned judge that our machinery of criminal justice envisages some correlation between the mode of trial and the sentencing powers of the courts and that under our system, indictable offences carry with them heavier sentences than summary ones. From this premise, learned counsel drew the court’s attention to the old Criminal Code, Cap. 9 (1951 Rev.), and the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 10 (1951 Rev.), and undertook a comparative analysis of their provisions with the present Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30). Mr. Afreh first referred to the titles of the new Codes which read: “AN ACT t
