–
KWEKU MENSAH & OTHERS
V.
THE KING
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1951
2PLR/1951/22 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1951/22 (WACA)
(1951) XIII WACA PP. 140 – 141
LEX (1951) – XIII WACA 140 – 141
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
BLACKALL, P.
LEWEY, J.A.
COUSSEY, J.
–
BETWEEN:
KWEKU MENSAH & OTHERS – Appellants
AND
THE KING – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal from the Supreme Court, W.A.C.A. CR. APP. 58/50.
–
REPRESENTATION
Koi-Larbi — for the Appellants
G. C. V. Young, Crown Counsel — for the Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Appeal against conviction – Alleged by misdirection by trial Judge on the defence of alibi – How properly misdirected
–
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ISSUE(S)
COURT:- Necessity for particulars of Misdirection – Interpretation of section 324 of the Criminal Code (Cap. 9) considered – Section includes attacks with armed force on any persons a, class of persons.
–
CASE SUMMARY
The grounds of appeal included allegations of misdirection, without stating whether such misdirection was of law or of fact, and no particulars were given of the nature of the misdirection.
In Rex v. Appiah Dankwa &, Others (1) section 324 of the Criminal Code (Cap. 9) was interpreted to include any armed attack on the police. The question now arose whether section 324 also covered a tribal riot, where there was no attack on the police.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held that:
1. Where misdirection is complained of, it must be stated whether such misdirection is of law or of fact, and its nature must also be set out.
2. Section 324 is not to be interpreted as restricted to attacks upon the servants of the central Government, but applies also to any attack with armed force on any persons or class of persons.
Cases referred to:
(1) Fielding, 25 Cr. App. Rep. 211.
(2) Rex v. Appiah Dankwa & Others, 13 W.A.C.A. 134.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following Judgment was delivered:
BLACKALL, P.
The grounds of appeal in this case were identical for all the appellants, except that in a few of them there appeared a ground that the trial Judge misdirected himself on the defence of alibi, but no particulars of the misdirection were given. This Court on many occasions has pointed out that where misdirection is complained of, it must be stated whether it is one of law or fact, and its nature must also be stated. The prosecution is entitled to know what case they have to meet (Fielding (1)).
A number of the other grounds were put down as questions of law under Form III, whereas they were actually questions of fact for which leave to appeal has to be obtained. They were therefore struck out. That left grounds 3 and 6. Mr Koi-Larbi abandoned ground 6 so the only ground left was ground 3. i.e that the Judge did not direct himself on the law relating to each count.
There again no particulars were given. However, as the prisoners were charged under section 324 of the Criminal Code this Court decided to reserve the decision as the interpretation of that section fell to be considered in Rex v. Appiah Dankwa & Others (2) which judgment of the Court has just been delivered. The only point, therefore, that remain is whether the present case can be regarded as distinguishable from that one. It is true that this case was more of a tribal riot than the other, and there was no attack on the police. But we have already held that section 324 is not to be interpreted as restricted to armed attacks upon the servants of the central Government: it is in perfectly genera: terms and applies to any attack with armed force on any persons or class of persons. The other point argued was that the appellants could not be convicted both of preparing to attack and of attacking. That has also been disposed of in the judgment just delivered. As leave was refused on questions of fact and as there was no appeal against sentence, this disposes of the matter, and all the appeals are dismissed.
–