Conviction for murder-Use of
words "against you" by arresting
Appeal from
officer
in administering caution.
Conviction
by Supreme
Held: The use of such words is
not illegal though it should be
avoided: appeal Court.
dismissed.
It is not necessary to set out
the facts of this case.
R.
K. Tamakloe
for Appellant.
T. A. Brown
for the Crown.
The following joint judgment was
delivered :-
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST
BARTON AND SAVARY. JJ.
This is an appeal from a
decision of Bannerman, J., who
convicted appellant of murder
and sentenced him to death. The
learned Judge sat with assessors
who gave their opinion that the
appellant was guilty of murder.
Grounds of appeal without any
particulars were filed. but, at
the request of the Court,
Counsel for appellant stated
verbally particulars of these
grounds, and it appears to us
that Counsel's main ground is
that in administering the
caution to the appellant before
he made his statement, the
police officer used the words "
against you" at the end.
In support of this Counsel
referred to a statement in
Archbold's Criminal Pleadings,
28th Edition, page 407, which
certainly does not support his
submission and is in fact
against it, but when the latest
case cited
R. v. Baldry
(1852),21 L.J. M.C. 130 is
looked at, the point appears
still more hopeless. At the end
of the judgment of Pollock, C.B.,
who delivered the principal
judgment of the Court for Crown
Cases Reserved, this passage
occurs: "It is, I think,
extremely important, as much for
the protection of innocence as
for the discovery of guilt, that
the accused should have an
opportunity of making a
statement, and he should also be
reminded that what he says may
be used against him, and, if an
admission of his guilt, would
probably be used against him."
It is true that the rules
approved by His Majesty's Judges
in England some years ago for
the guidance of police officers
recommended that the words
"against you" at the end of the
caution should be omitted, and
this recommendation has been
generally adopted, but no
authority has been cited to us
since these rules were made, and
we know of none, that would
support the view that the
inclusion of these words makes
the statement inadmissible
provided that in other respects
the statement is voluntary. It
has not been suggested that this
statement is not voluntary.
It was further contended in this
Court by Counsel for appellant
that the learned Judge had not
considered the question of
manslaughter. This submission
is entirely refuted by the
learned Judge's summing-up, and
we are of opinion that he not
only considered it, but directed
himself and the assessors
properly on it.
On page 1 of his summing-up he
states that the question of
manslaughter was raised and that
he dealt exhaustively with
sections 238, 239 and 240 of the
Criminal Code and the relevant
sub-sections thereto.
Sections 238 and 239 set out the
cases in which murder is reduced
to manslaughter, and the matters
which amount to provocation,
and section 240 gives the cases
where the benefit of provocation
is excluded
It is clear to us that the
language used by the learned
Judge at the foot of page 1 and
top of page 2 of his summing-up
was referable to the provisions
of sub-section (2) of section
238 and sub-section
(1) (d)
of section 240, in relation to
the facts of the case, and that
he brought his mind to bear on
the various aspects of the
matter and the relevant law
