SUPREME COURT, ACCRA
DATE: 21ST DECEMBER, 1962
BEFORE: SARKODEE-ADDO J.S.C.
JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADDO J.S.C.
At the trial of the accused for murder, the trial judge directed the jury “as to the law relating to a defect of reason arising from drunkenness.” In so doing he set out the principles governing the defence of drunkenness under the English criminal law and in particular dealt exhaustively with the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Arthur Beard [1920] A.C. 479, H.L. and concluded thus: “You must now apply the facts to these principles and ask yourselves whether in your opinion the accused intended to harm Sarfo when he used the knife on him. You may have no difficulty in finding that he knew what he was doing.” There was no
[p.182] of [1962] 2 GLR 181
reference whatsoever to the criminal liability of an intoxicated person under our law as specifically provided by the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), section 28.
Upon principle as well as upon authority the learned trial judge erred in relying on English criminal law and not the elaborate provisions in the Criminal Code relating to intoxication.
Article 42 (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana provides that: “The Supreme Court shall in principle be bound to follow its own previous decisions on questions of law, and the High Court shall be bound to follow previous decisions of the Supreme Court on such questions, but neither court shall be otherwise bound to follow the previous decisions of any court on questions of law.”
In the case of Wallace-Johnson v. The King (1938) 5 W.A.C.A. 56 at p.60, the Privy Council said: “The elaborate structure of section 330 suggests that it was intended to contain as far as possible a full and complete statement of the law of sedition in the Colony. It must therefore be construed in its application to the facts of this case free from any glosses or interpolations derived from any expositions however authoritative of the law of England or of Scotland.”
This principle applies to section 28 of the Criminal Code, 1960. Turning to the issue of provocation even though the learned trial judge in his summing-up drew the jury’s attention to the law and read to them every section of the Criminal Code that could assist them in their deliberations, he did not explain clearly that what they had to consider was whether in their view the accused, in view of the alleged assault and battery complained of, would be likely to be deprived of the power of self-control. The appellant is advanced in age and of the Konkomba tribe in the Northern Region and such a direction would necessarily involve an examination of the community to which he belonged. See R. v. Atta [1959] G.L.R. 337 at p. 339.
(The State v. Konkomba alias Atta. Judgment of the court (Sarkodee-Adoo, Crabbe and Blay, JJ.S.C.) delivered by Sarkodee-Adoo, J.S.C.)
