Appeal Court. 21 Dec.,
1935.
Murder-.Admissions to Police by
prisoners at locus in quo soon
after beating irregular' and
'inadmissible- wrongful
admission of confessions
'induced by person in authority
Assessors not informed that
confession evidence only against
person making it.
Held: Convictions quashed,
The facts are sufficiently set
out in the judgment.
H .A.
Hayfron-Benjamin for
Appellants.
T. A. Brown for Brown.
'1'he following judgment was
delivered:-
YATES, ACTING C.,J., GOLD
COAST'.
The accused were tried at the
first Assizes held in Kumasi
before' Bannerman. J. sitting
with Assessor, on a charge of
Murder, they were convicted from
this conviction they have
appealed. The two material
grounds of appeal are
misdirection by the learned
Judge in his summing up to the
Assessors, and the reception of
inadmissible evidence.
Very briefly the facts are as
follows. The deceased Kwaku
Opong lived at a village called
Manfu and one day it was
reported to the Odikro he was
missing, a search party was
instituted, and subsequently his
dead body was found hanging on a
tree in a. farm belonging to the
second accused. On the next day
an assembly was held in the
village to fi1](l out who had
killed the deceased, and as a
result suspicion fell on the
four accused. They were then
tied baud and foot and
thoroughly beaten with the
object of making' them confess.
The Police were then sent for
and the prisoners arrested and
cautioned. They were then taken
to the locus in quo where
they made certain admission!".
They were then taken to Kumasi
where they were formally charged
with murder and each of them
made a confession. At the trial,
these confessions were admitted
in evidence though objected to
at the time. In admitting these
statements the Court is of
opinion that the learned Judge
was wrong and for two reasons.
Firstly, because the prisoners
had been told hy Yaw Bafo who
seemed to be in authority at
Manfu, that they should
confess,' and moreover because
the Court believes they were
induced to confess because of
the severe beatings they had
received, and secondly because
when the confessions were
admitted in evidence the learned
Judge failed to inform the
Assessors that the evidence of
the confession was only evidence
against the person who made it
and not against the other three
prisoners. Moreover it appears
from the learned Judge's notes
of his summing up, no reference
is made that he directed the
Assessors on this point, and the
Court is of opinion he did not
do so as he says" he himself
attached great importance to
these confessions" and it seems
clear he failed to direct
himself also on this point. The
Court is therefore of opinion
,firstly that the evidence of
these confessions should not
have been admitted because they
were induced by beatings, and
secondly that the learned Judge
misdirected himself and the
Assessors.
