DOM v. THE REPUBLIC PRACTICE DIRECTION [1968] GLR 767
9 September 1968 · EDUSEI J · ≈ 2 min read
[1968] SLR (HC) 31Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
DIVISION: HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST
DATE: 9 SEPTEMBER 1968
BEFORE: EDUSEI J.
COUNSEL
K. A. Sarpong for the appellant.
W. Halm, Assistant State Attorney, for the Republic.
JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
It has been repeated by the superior courts of this land that in summary trials the facts as given by the prosecutor must appear in the record of proceedings when an accused person pleads guilty. It is only in this way that an appellate court will be able to determine whether the facts recorded do constitute an offence or may show that a plea of not guilty be entered instead. Circuit and district courts appear not to follow his directive and I have had several opportunities to bring this state of affairs to the notice of the Judicial Secretary who has sent out several circulars on the directions of the Chief Justice to courts of summary jurisdiction but the directive is not being followed. I have to repeat it again that on a plea of guilty by an accused person the facts as given by the prosecutor must be recorded by the circuit judge or the district magistrate and hope this instruction will henceforth be followed. In this case, the district magistrate on a plea of guilty recorded as follows: “Accused after assaulting the complainant ran to the police to make a frivolous complaint.” What facts are on record for the appellate court to agree or disagree with the trial court that the complaint lodged with the police by the appellant was frivolous? This question is unanswerable from the material on record and this shows that the provisions of section 171 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), were not complied with because this court cannot determine whether or not there is “sufficient cause to the contrary.” In the circumstances, I allow the appeal against conviction and sentence. In view of the fact that the appellant had been in prison for [p.768] of [1968] GLR 767 almost two-and-half months I do not wish to order a new trial.
DECISION
He is accordingly acquitted and discharged.
S. K. T.
