Isaac Boye Quaye & Ors V. The Queen (1954)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Appeals in Criminal Cases—Verdict ofguilty—Circumstances for intervening on appeal or otherwise.
Criminal Law—Homicide—Felony involving violence—Whether murder or manslaughter.
Criminal Code of the Gold Coast—Sections 13 (2) and (3).

Facts

The case against the appellants was that they went into a house to steal and administered chloroform to an old man, who died.

The evidence was summed up to the jury, who were also directed on the law: it was explained to them that whilst in England ” a person who uses violent measures in the commission of a felony involving personal violence … is guilty of murder if those violent measures result, even inadvertently, in the death of the victim ”, in the Gold Coast ” his offence will only be murder if, as sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Criminal Code says, he does that act ‘ believing that it will probably cause or contribute to cause ‘ the death of the victim and the jury were told to bring in a verdict of manslaughter if of opinion that the accused in administering chloroform to the deceased “ did not do it for the purpose of causing his death and did not believe or realise at all that the act would cause his death or that there was any great risk of its doing so (a direction based on section 13 (3) of the Code).

The jury found No. 1 and No. 3 guilty of murder but No. 2 guilty of manslaughter only. They all appealed. As regards appellant No. 1 it was conceded by the Crown that the case was weak; it also appeared that the verdict against him was affected by his being implicated in the statements made to the police by the other two.

For No. 2 it was submitted that death from unnatural causes had not been satisfactorily proved and that his statement to the police had been obtained by duress.

No. 3 took a leading part; he, moreover, admitted in his statement to the police that he was present and was at least aiding in the crime, though not actually taking part in the assault; and the question in his case was whether he ought not to have been convicted of murder but of manslaughter only.

Held

(1) The case against the first appellant, though fraught with grave suspicion, was not proved with that certainty which is necessary in order to justify a verdict of guilty.

(2) It could not be said that the statement of the second appellant had been wrongly admitted; and the question of the cause of death was one of fact for the jury, who were properly directed both on that and on the case as it affected the second appellant; there was evidence on which they could convict and no ground for interfering with their verdict.

(3) There was evidence that the third appellant took a leading part, consequently it could not be said that the conviction was unreasonable; and there being evidence on which the jury could act, as they, after being properly directed, rejected the more merciful view in his case, there was no ground for refusing to accept their verdict of murder.

Appeal of No. 1 allowed; those of No. 2 and No. 3 dismissed.