–
KOFI AMOFA
V.
THE QUEEN
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 1952
LEX (1952) – XIV WACA 238 – 239
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1952/29 (WACA)
(1952) XIV WACA PP. 238 – 239
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
WILSON, C.J., GOLD COAST
COUSSEY, J.A.
–
BETWEEN
KOFI AMOFA – Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal by convicted person: No. 54/52
–
REPRESENTATION
O. A. Alakija with Dr. Taylor — for Appellant
G. V. C. Young, Crown Counsel — for the Crown
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Criminal Code, section 396 – Falsifying of documents by public officers – Act done intentionally and unlawfully – How treated
–
CASE SUMMARY
Appellant, a public officer, intentionally and unlawfully falsified some fire-arm licences to which he had access by virtue of his office. He was convicted under section 396 of the Criminal Code and the ground raised for him on appeal was that the trial Court did not direct itself on mens rea as being necessary to constitute the offence under the section.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (dismissing the appeal) that:
The legislature intended absolutely to forbid the acts mentioned in the section to be done intentionally and unlawfully.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following Judgment was delivered:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
The appellant in this case was convicted on five counts of falsifying, in each case, a fire-arm licence contrary to section 396 of the Criminal Code.
The case was tried by Jackson, J., assisted by three assessors. The learned trial Judge and all the assessors came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty on all counts, and he was duly convicted and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each count, the sentences to run consecutively, making a total of three years and nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour.
Only one ground was raised on this appeal, that is to say, that the learned trial Judge “failed to direct himself and the assessors adequately or at all on the question of mens rea necessary to constitute the offence under the section”.
The section under which the appellant was charged reads as follows:-
“Every public officer who intentionally and unlawfully destroys, injures, falsifies, or conceals any document which is in his possession, custody, or control, or to which he has access by virtue of his office, shall be liable to imprisonment for two years.”
In each case the learned trial Judge found as a fact that the appellant falsified a fire-arm import licence, to quote him, “intentionally and unlawfully”. There was, in our view, abundant evidence to support such findings.
In order to determine whether mens rea, that is to say, a guilty mind or intention, is an essential element of the offence charged, it is necessary to look at the object and terms of the law which creates the offence.
It seems clear to us that the legislature thought it so important to prevent the destruction, injury, falsification or concealment by public officers of documents under their custody or control, or to which they have access by virtue of the office they hold, that it intended absolutely to forbid it to be done, “intentionally and unlawfully”, That being so, the prosecution, in our opinion, discharged the onus of proof which was upon it, when it proved, as it did in this case-firstly, that the appellant was a public officer, secondly, that the appellant intentionally and unlawfully falsified the documents mentioned in each count, and, thirdly, that he had access to such documents by virtue of his office.
In these circumstances we are of the opinion that this appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
–