KOTEY v. THE STATE [1963] 1 GLR 41
24 January 1963 · OLLENNU JSC · ≈ 2 min read
[1963] SLR (SC) 6Other 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: IN THE SUPREME COURT
DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 1963
BEFORE: ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, OLLENNU AND AKUFO-ADDO JJ.S.C.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J. S.C.
In its judgment read by Ollennu J.S.C., the Supreme Court held that although in a trial with assessors, the judge is, by section 287 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), not bound to conform to the opinion expressed by the assessors, and is entitled to come to his own conclusions upon the facts against the unanimous opinion of the assessors, yet in the case of a prosecution based entirely upon facts, a court should not ignore the opinion of assessors which is unanimous in favour of an accused unless it can show good reasons for rejecting it. The mandatory direction in section 287 (2) that the judgment of the court “shall contain the reasons for the decision” implies that principle. Therefore in an appeal from a conviction where the assessors have each expressed opinion that [p.42] of [1963] 1 GLR 41 the appellant is not guilty, this court has to take notice of the opinion so expressed by the assessors, and if this court finds that no cogent grounds are given by the learned judge in the reasons for his judgment why his single opinion on the facts is weightier than, and preferable to, the opinion of the assessors the court should quash the conviction
The Supreme Court is bound to consider the opinion of the assessors along with the reasons for his decision which the trial judge gives in his judgment, and if no good reason appears to have been given by the trial judge for ignoring the unanimous opinion expressed by the assessors, that court is bound to quash the conviction. In certain circumstances, the opinion unanimously expressed by three assessors is as good as a verdict of a jury, and where the trial judge does not advance any good legal grounds for rejecting it, he should accept it.
COUNSEL
Appellant in person
Annan, Senior State Attorney, for the respondent.
DECISION
Appeal allowed.
J. D.
