THE STATE v. OSEI AND ANOTHER
1960
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- VAN LARE
- SARKODFE-ADOO
- AKIWUMI JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
1960
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Kwame Fosu Osei and Emmanuel Daniel Annan were convicted for conspiracy to steal and stealing government funds, and their appeal was dismissed. The key issues included whether conspiracy and stealing charges could be combined, and whether it was appropriate for the trial judge to admit similar facts evidence. Relevant cases and statutes were cited to support the admissibility of similar facts and the concept of joint responsibility in conspiracy. Despite arguments presented by defense counsel regarding errors in the trial, the appellate court upheld the convictions, ruling that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.
JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADOO J.S.C.
Sarkodee-Adoo J.S.C. read the judgment of the court. The appellants were jointly charged on twelve counts, six of conspiracy to steal and six of stealing moneys totalling in all a sum of £G2,911 10s. belonging to the Ghana Government. On the counts of conspiracy the appellants were jointly charged with one E. A. Daniels and other persons unknown to steal moneys belonging to the Ghana Government by means of employment.
The first appellant, Kwame Fosu Osei was a cashier in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture at Kumasi on the material dates of the offences charged; the second appellant, Emmanuel Daniel Annan was the assistant accountant in the said Ministry and E. A. Daniels, who was a clerical officer attached to the Konongo/North District of the said Ministry, did not stand trial with the appellants.
The trial was at the Kumasi Assizes before Crabbe, J., with the aid of assessors who expressed various opinions as to the guilt of the appellants. The learned trial judge found each appellant guilty on all the twelve counts and convicted each of them accordingly.
Mr. Kom for the first appellant was granted leave to argue the additional grounds filed, namely —
"1. The learned trial judge was wrong in overruling the preliminary objection that the accused person can be charged with conspiracy and stealing together.
[p.220]
“2. The trial judge was wrong in admitting similar facts evidence to the prejudice of the accused without first ascertaining from the prosecution what the evidence of system is to prove or establish.
"3. In view of the following conclusion of the learned judge the conviction for conspiracy cannot stand: —
‘I accept the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 and I have not the slightest doubt that Exhibits "A" "Al-A5" were cashed by the first accused, who stole the amount represented by these cheques.'
"4. If the learned judge had as a matter of fact found 'Exhibit "N" (i.e. the Cash Book) shows that first accused had no intention of stealing any money as reflected by the entries' he should in law have withdrawn the charge from the assessors or directed the assessors to return a verdict of not guilty of stealing.
"5. The finding of the learned judge in paragraphs 3 and 4 are contradictory and therefore conviction cannot stand.
"6. On the whole the prosecution failed to prove the charge of conspiracy and stealing."
In arguing ground 1, learned counsel himself cited Archbold, (34th ed. at p. 1525 para. 4070 ) w