P a g e |1

Criminal & Other Offences Act,1960 (Act 29) • Proportionality Theory: Punishment must fit the crime.
- Amendment Act, 1998 (Act 554). - i.e. the moral culpability of the offender justifies the
- Amendment Act, 2012 (Act 849) punishment

PRELIMINARY MATTERS ii. Utilitarian Theories

• accredited to the English jurist, Jeremy Bentham.
• Malum in se: one that is wrong or evil in itself
- Conduct that is considered universally to be wrong, • punishment must be a means to an end. It should not be
regardless of whether a law exists concerning it and imposed for its sake – it must serve a purpose.
regardless of where it occurs e.g. murder - The purpose it serves being the end
• Malum prohibitum: one that is wrong because it is prohibited - Here, the focus is on the beneficial consequences of
- Conduct that is considered criminal only because it is punishment
prohibited by law • Beneficial consequences of punishment
a) Deterrence: Punishment is imposed to communicate to
• Categories of Offences in order of seriousness: the community that such conduct would not be tolerated
i. Offences punishable by death (capital offences) thereby supposedly reducing the incidence of crime.
- e.g. murder, treason and high treason ▪ General Deterrence: focuses on the effect of
ii. First degree felonies punishment on society at large. Such sentences tend
- normally attract a prison term of up to life sentence to be severe – the offender
- e.g. rape, and causing harm with the use of an offensive Kwashie: police officers ceased contraband goods and used them for
their own selfish designs. Held on appeal that since the offence was of a
weapon very grave nature, the sentence must not only have been punitive but it
iii. Second degree felonies must also have been a deterrent or exemplary in order to mark the
- attract a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years disapproval of society of such conduct by police officers.
e.g. abortion, causing harm, and threat of death ▪ Specific Deterrence seeks to discourage the
- Offences involving dishonesty, e.g. stealing, robbery, individual offender from repeating the commission
defrauding by false pretences attract sentences of up to of a crime.
25yrs b) Prevention: removing the individual offender from
iv. Misdemeanours society to render him physically incapable of committing
- normally attract a prison term not exceeding 3 years further crimes
v. Offences Punishable by fines c) Reform and Rehabilitation: aimed at assisting the
offender to turn a new leaf by adopting a lifestyle
different from the criminal one through moral education
PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY (Art. 19; Tsatsu Tsikata) d) Atonement and Reparation: the offender is made to
• encapsulated in the Latin maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena compensate the victim for the damage or injury resulting
sine lege praevia lege poenali from his criminal conduct
• No crime is committed and no punishment can be imposed Section 35(1) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459):Where a person is
without the act having been prohibited and the punishment charged with an offence before the HC or a Regional Tribunal, the
having been prescribed by a law enacted before the act was commission of which has caused economic loss, harm or damage to the
State or any State agency, the accused may inform the prosecutor whether
committed. the accused admits the offence and is willing to offer compensation or
• Nullum crimen sine praevia lege make restitution and reparation for the loss, harm or damage caused.
- An act or omission to act is only a crime if before the act
or omission was committed, there was a law declaring
the act or omission in question as a punishable offence
Article 19(5): A person shall not be charged with or held guilty of a ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at i. Actus Reus: a prohibited act or omission, i.e. the physical
the time it took place constitute an offence element
• Nulla poena sine praevia lege - May be an act, or an act together with the surrounding
- An act or omission to act is only a crime if a specific circumstances, or an omission to act when required to do
penalty has been previously prescribed for that act or so
omission ii. Mens Rea: a prohibited mental state with which the
Article 19(11): No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless particular act or omission is done.
the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law - Differs from offense to offense: E.g.
▪ intentional conduct that is proscribed,
• Overbreadth and Vagueness ▪ knowledge of the unlawfulness of the conduct
- a statute is vague and overbroad where it either forbids • The 2 elements must coincide in respect of the same event for
or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men the act to amount to a crime
of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its - Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: an act does not
meaning and differ as to its application. make a man a criminal unless the mind be guilty.
• Strict liability offence: offences where the law dispenses
• The Rule against Double Jeopardy with the requirement mental element.
- Once a person has been tried for an offence, he cannot be
tried again for the same offence, whether his trial ended
in an acquittal or a conviction.
- Where a person causes harm to another, and the victim is INTENTION (Section 11)- (mens rea)
still alive, the accused is not in jeopardy of being charged 1. Direct Intent: there is a rebuttable presumption that a man
for murder at his trial for causing harm. If the victim intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions
eventually dies, the accused may be charged for murder 2. Oblique Intent: where a person engages in conduct for a
[Sec 115 of Act 30] particular purpose and the means chosen causes other effects
as well, the accused is not excused from liability if his act
achieves an undesired consequence, as long as the undesired
PUNISHMENT consequence was foreseeable at the time the act was
committed
• It entails the infliction of suffering or some other unpleasant
visitation by a deliberate act of the authority of the State 3. General or Indeterminate Intent: where a person engages in
on an offender after he has been lawfully convicted for an criminal conduct against a crowd or an assembly of people
offence without really intending to harm a particular person, and a
• 2 main theories: Retributive and utilitarian member of the group is harmed thereby, the accused will be
liable even though the eventual victim was not within his direct
i. Retributive Theory contemplation
• classic retributive theory: Steeped in revenge – in the nature R v. Gyamfi: A threw a stone, at a group of CPP supporters, which hit the
of Mosaic law. dec’d, who died from injuries sustained therefrom. A was found guilty
- The offender should be paid back in his own coin – “lex for manslaughter because there was sufficient intention to cause harm by
talionis” the act of throwing a large stone into a crowd

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e |2

4. Transferred Intent: a man who has an unlawful and ▪ Accused will not be liable if the second cause is so
malicious intent against another, and, in attempting to carry it overwhelming as to make the original wound
out, injures a third person, will punished as if the initial merely part of the history.
intention was to harm the injured person - An act done to avoid detection of an earlier act does not
Ametewee: A, a police officer who was on duty at the Flagstaff House, operate to break the chain of causation.
fired 3 shots at the President. One of the shots hit and killed the ▪ Thabo Meli: hit the victim on the head to kill him and
President’s body guard. thinking he was dead rolled him off a cliff. Victim
- any defence available to the accused or any extenuating actually died of the exposure outside.
factor that works to the advantage of the accused, had the
harm occurred to the intended victim, will still be Section 64- Novus Actus & Death.
available to the accused although the harm occurred to • “Take your victim as find him warts and all”
another person • An existing illness or susceptibility, e.g. infancy, old age,
disease, intoxication, of the victim does not negative causal
Proof of Intent (Objective test): connexion
• The presumption is to the effect that a person intends the R v. Twum v. The Republic: A hit the dec’d, an able-bodied and healthy-
natural and probable consequences of his actions. looking policeman, in the face whereupon he fell down and bled from the
• The presumption may be rebutted by showing that that person nose and mouth and he died the next day. The medical evidence showed
believed that the act would probably not cause or contribute that apart from the cracked skull resulting from the blow, the dec’d had
to cause the event, or that there was not an intention to cause oedema of the lungs which could have killed him later. Held, on appeal,
or contribute to it that despite the evidence of oedema, the blow was the proximate cause of
death.
Serechi v. The State: AGC employees were conveying firewood trucks
on a locomotive train pushed non-employees, who had jumped on the • The victim’s action or inaction after the infliction of harm
train, off the train. does not break the chain of causation unless the victim’s
• Intention is the will to engage in an act, while motive is the behaviour subsequent to the injury was unreasonable.
feeling that prompts the desire to engage in the act. - E.g. the refusal of the victim to undergo treatment or her
lack of proper care for herself
R v. Blaue: Dec’d was a member of the Jehovah’s Witness. She refused
a blood transfusion, due to her religious beliefs, although she had lost a
CAUSATION (Sections 13, 64 & 81) lot of blood from attack by D with a knife which had pierced her lung.
• a causal connection must be established between the accused • The acts of physicians ordinarily do not break the chain of
and the act that constitutes the actus reus. causation.
• In law, we are not concerned with the factual or de facto • Unskilful treatment does not relieve the accused from liability
scientific cause rather the legal cause i.e. a finding of the unless:
person that set a chain of events in motion - death could not have been foreseen as likely consequence
• In law, to cause, is to bring about an event or state of affairs of the treatment, or
by one’s own act or endeavour - the treatment is grossly negligent i.e. so great as to
support a conviction for manslaughter
Section 13 • Time lapse may operate to break the chain of causation
• It is a question of fact whether an event is fairly and - The accused cannot be held liable if the victim died a
reasonably to be ascribed to a person’s act to have been year and a day after he inflicted the harm
caused by that act.
• To establish the responsibility of the accused for the actus Section 81- death must be caused by physical harm
reus, it must be proved that the accused caused or contributed • An act done calculated to cause harm not by physical means
to cause the prohibited event but through emotional distress and psychological harm, i.e.
- mere suspicion will not do grief, terror or emotion, will not fix the accused with liability
R v. Yeboah: A fatally injured man was discovered a short distance • A person is not blameworthy for causing an event through
from the direction where the accused had been leading a chase spiritual means.
shouting “thief”. Held: there was no evidence connecting the - no liability for causing death through witchcraft or juju
accused with the death of the deceased - a person’s witchcraft cannot be set up as a defence for
• Joint Causation: Where an event is caused by the acts of inflicting harm on her
several persons acting jointly or independently, each of the • Contributory negligence, e.g. by trespass, negligence, act, or
persons who intentionally or negligently contributed to cause omission does not lie as a defence for causing harm to
the event has…caused the event; another person.
- but a matter of exemption, justification, extenuation, or Section 68: Where harm is unlawfully caused to a person within GH, but
aggravation which exists in the case of any one of those the death as a result of the harm, occurs outside GH, the person who
persons shall have effect in favour of that one person, caused or abetted the causing of the harm may be tried and punished as
whether it exists or not in the case of any of the other though the death occurred in GH
persons
• Novus Actus Interveniens: there must be an unbroken chain
of causation between the act of the accused and the event
- Although the accused may have set a chain of events in CAPACITY
motion, if a factor or the act of another person interposes 1. Article 57(5): “The President shall not, while in office as
itself between the act of the accused and the ensuing President, be personally liable to any civil or criminal
event to break the chain of causation, the accused will not proceedings in court.”
be held liable 2. Infants (sec. 26): the age of criminal responsibility is 12 years
▪ Applies only if the accused had no cause to take - a person under twelve years of age is incapable of
that factor into account while directing his mind to committing a criminal offence. doli incapax (has no
his action or if it was an unforeseen event. capacity for mischief)
- A person who intentionally causes an involuntary agent
to cause an event, shall be deemed to have caused the
event DEFENCES
▪ Involuntary agent: an animal; any other thing; a • Complete defence: operates to exculpate the accused from
person who is exempted from liability to liability
punishment (infant or insane) • Partial defence does not entirely excuse criminal liability. It
- An act reasonably done to rescue the victim or render goes either to reduce a charge to a lesser offence or to reduce
medical assistance, even if the actor is not legally bound punishment to a lesser sentence
to help, does not relieve the accused from liability, if
death occurs from the attempt to rescue or to render 1. CONSENT (Sec. 14 & 42) (Complete defence)
assistance Section 14- specific rules on consent
▪ The accused ought to have contemplated that some
person, upon seeing the victim, would attempt to • Several offences are defined requiring the lack of consent
rescue or render assistance to the victim e.g. the offence of rape is made out when the lack of consent
to sex is established.

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e |3

• Consent validly obtained and sanctioned by law excuses • Exceptions for medical treatment
from criminal responsibility i. Consent by a person for the infliction of a wound or a
- must be voluntarily given and the person giving the grievous harm may be justified if the wound or harm is
consent must be of full age and capacity. caused, in good faith, for the purposes or in the course of
- Retrospective consent will not do medical or surgical treatment
- Consenting to something is regardless of liking the thing - It does not extend to improper treatment or negligent
or how disagreeable the thing turns out to be. mistreatment
• Capacity to Consent: Persons who cannot give consent to ii. Consent for the use of force against a person for the purposes
any act: of medical or surgical treatment or for his benefit may be
- A child under 12 years given:
- With respect to sexual offences, a child under 16 years - by a parent or guardian on behalf of a child under 18yrs
- Insane person against the will of the child
- A person who is unable to understand the nature or ▪ the child cannot revoke the consent
consequences of his action by reason of immaturity - by a prison authority on behalf of prisoner
- A permanently incapacitated person - by a medical authority on behalf of an insane person
- A temporarily incapacitated person like an intoxicated iii. Force may, in good faith and without negligence, be
person, or drugged person or a comatose person justifiably used on a person for the purpose of medical or
• Vitiating Factors: consent obtained such means is void and surgical treatment or for his benefit if that person is unable
incurably bad. to give or withhold consent by reason of intoxication, or
- Consent is obtained any vitiating factor if it would have insensibility e.g. coma
been refused but for the existence of that factor. - A person authorised by that person or by law to give or
i. Fraud or Deceit refuse consent may dissent.
- The person giving the consent must be fully informed of • Where the intent to cause harm is established, the consent to
the circumstances of the transaction in order to make a fight is rendered ineffective in law as a matter of public policy
fully informed choice whether the fight is lawful or unlawful
- Half-truths will not do. • Revocation of consent: Consent once given, may be revoked,
R v. Williams: Presbyterian choirmaster and voice lessons trainer had and when it is revoked, it ceases to have effect or justify force
sexual intercourse with girl under the pretext of creating a passage in
her vagina with his penis to make her sing better by easing her breathing
since she was not getting her notes right. 2. INSANITY (Sec 27)- (partial defence)
ii. Duress: an act done with force, harm, constraint, or threat, with • It is a combination of factors or states of affairs from which
intent to cause a person, against that person’s will to do or the law draws a conclusion as to the sanity or otherwise of a
abstain from doing an act vitiates consent. [Section 1] person
- For consent to be vitiated by duress, the act inducing • Law on insanity derived from the principles of McNaughten
consent need not be of extreme violence established by UK judges after the McNaughten case.
iii. Undue influence: involves one person taking advantage of a Daniel McNaghten, who suffered from what today would be called
position of power over another person paranoia, actuated by the morbid delusion that he was being
- consent that is obtained by or under the exercise of any persecuted by “Tories shot and killed the Secretary of Prime
kind of authority; or by the exercise of authority by Minister. He was acquitted on the ground of insanity.
operation of law but which is exercised otherwise than in • At common law everyone is presumed to be sane.
good faith (i.e. mala fides) • A successful plea of insanity does not lead to an acquittal.
- The law jealously guards the interests of the weaker party - It leads to the special verdict i.e. “guilty but insane” [Sec.
in: 137 of Act 30; sec. 27 of Act 29]
▪ Parent/child - Under the special verdict, is kept away from society often
▪ Guardian/ward in a mental institution “till the pleasure of the President
▪ Priest/member of parish be known” – sec. 137 of Act 30
▪ Solicitor/client • Rebuttal of the presumption of sanity:
▪ Doctor/patient i. Where there is a defect in the mental faculty which renders
▪ Employer/employee the accused incapable of knowing the nature and
- If a person in a position of authority or influence takes consequences of his actions
indecent liberties with a person subject to his authority or - i.e. if that person was prevented, by reason of idiocy,
influence without the person’s consent, though the imbecility, or a mental derangement or disease affecting
person does not resist, he is liable to be punished as for the mind,
an assault. R v. Windle: A after discussing on several occasions at work gave
iv. Mistake of fact: may be as to the nature of the act, or the his insane wife a fatal dose of aspirin. Later, he told the police that he
identity of a person supposed he would be hanged for it. Held: “A man may be suffering
- it must be a fundamental mistake from a defect of reasoning, but, if he knows that what he is doing is
- A fundamental mistake is one that goes to the root or the wrong – and by ‘wrong’ is meant contrary to law – he is responsible.”
heart of a consent given - The defect of the mind may be ascertained from medical
v. Mala fides consent by 3rd parties on behalf of another: consent, history and the acts of the accused contemporaneous to
when given, must be in good faith for the benefit or the good the event; i.e. his acts immediately before or at the time
of the person on whose behalf it is given. of the act, or immediately after the act
- a senseless killing lacking motive is not in itself an
Section 42- Limits placed on the right to consent indication of a deranged condition of the mind. Other
• A person cannot consent to: factors must add up to upset the presumption of sanity
i. His own death - Collins alias Derby: a man allegedly suffering from
- R v. Pike: the accused was found guilty of manslaughter for schizophrenia inflicted extensive injuries on the victim at the
the death of his mistress. She died as a result of the inhalation victim’s farm.
of a dangerous anaesthetic which she had consented to doing,
so that he could satisfy his sexual passion of copulating with an ii. a mental delusion which renders the accused an unfit
unconscious woman. subject for punishment
- A person who commits euthanasia cannot set up the - The consideration here is that the accused lives in a world
consent of the victim as an excuse of his own and he is oblivious of happenings in fact and
in reality – thus, it is sufficient if the accused acts while
ii. The infliction of a wound or a grievous harm on him in a state of mind induced by mental disease, in which a
R v. Donovan: girl consented to being severely caned by A for sexual false belief is held that cannot be shaken by facts or
gratification. reality
Held: Where a person is indicted for inflicting personal injury upon - Such a state of mind may be temporal or permanent
another, the consent of the person who sustains the injury is no defence Moshie: A on the belief that his landlord had come from Kumasi with
to the person who inflicts the injury, if the injury is of such a nature, or is a number of men to take him to the Asantehene to be killed. And in
inflicted under such circumstances, that its infliction is injurious to the an act of purported self-defence killed his landlord, chased other
public as well as to the person people in the village and wounded a woman and proceeded to cut a
little boy up with a cutlass.

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e |4

- Under insane delusion there is no requirement that the • Section 37: a person may justify the use of force or harm in
mental delusion should lead to an incapacity to control self-defence or the defence of another, which is reasonably
one’s conduct necessary extending in case of extreme necessity even to
▪ This does not mean that the person has an killing.
irresistible urge to act – but that the person has no • Section 38: force in unlawful fight is not justifiable.
consciousness of acting • Section 43: a person who is justifiably using force may use
- The law looks at the degree or quality of the incapability the force on a 3rd party who us obstructing him from the use
of the mind that caused the delusion and not the subject of force.
or substance of the particular delusion. • Section 45: a person who assists another in the justifiable use
▪ A person is fit subject for punishment if he is of force is himself justified to the extent of the person.
morally blameable for the act
- The accused must have been labouring under the
delusion at the time of the incident not subsequently. 6. PROVOCATION (Sec. 52-56) (Partial defence)
• Where a crime is committed in circumstances of extreme
anger, the law takes the view that responsibility of the person
3. AUTOMATISM (impaired consciousness) angered is not total due to the extraordinary emotional state
• Automatism, in legal terms, is any abnormal state of of anger in which he was put.
consciousness that is regarded as incompatible with the Classic Definition of Provocation: “…some act, or series of acts,
existence of mens rea, while not amounting to insanity. done…which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes
• Occurs when a person acts without his cognitive faculties in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the
• There is no provision in Act 29 concerning automatism, but a accused subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not
master of his mind.[ Devlin J in Duffy]
Ghanaian court will hold that a temporary blackout during
which a crime is committed would be considered as a defence • The defence can only be raised by an accused who is under a
of automatism since the mind, at the time in question, was charge of a crime of homicide
absent - Sec 52: A person who intentionally causes the death of
Dogo Dagarti: appellant killed his wife and claimed that he did so during another person by unlawful harm commits
an epileptic fit and that he had no recollection of what happened manslaughter and not murder or attempted murder,
Held (on appeal): It is true that the learned trial judge’s statement of the if that person was deprived of the power of self-
law that the defence of automatism is not applicable to this country is too control by an extreme provocation given by the other
wide, for although automatism is not stated in our law to be a defence to person as is mentioned in sections 53, 54, 55 and 56
crime, yet there are cases where an act may be done by a person under
automatism in such a situation that in law the act cannot be said to be the
act of the person who did it.
Section 53- situations which amount to extreme provocation
i. an unlawful assault and battery:
“an unlawful assault and battery committed on the accused person by the
other person, in an unlawful fight or otherwise, which is of a kind, in
4. IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE OF FACT/ OF LAW (Sec 29) respect of its violence or by reason of accompanying words, gestures, or
other circumstances of insult or aggravation, that is likely to deprive a
• Ignorance of fact is a complete defence. person of ordinary character and in the circumstances in which the
- A person who acts in ignorance of a fact has no intention accused person was, of the power of self-control”
of engaging in a forbidden conduct
• Ignorance of Law is no defence. • Components:
- a person who acts not in ignorance of a fact but in - unlawful assault and battery which is violent in itself, or
ignorance of the law, intends to engage in the prohibited - unlawful assault and battery accompanied by words,
conduct, although she does not know that that conduct is gestures, insults or aggravation.
prohibited by law • The assault and battery committed on the accused must be one
R v. Tolson: remarried under a bona fide belief in the death of her 1st that is likely to deprive a person of ordinary character the
husband. Held: At common law an honest and reasonable belief in the power of self-control.
existence of circumstances which, if true, would make the act for - The accused, in fact, must have been deprived of his
which a prisoner is indicted an innocent act, has always been a good power of self-control
defence Honest and reasonable mistake stands, in fact, on the same
footing as absence of reasoning faculty, as in infancy, or perversion
• Mere words do not amount to provocation
of the faculty, as in lunacy. - The words must accompany an assault and battery.
• Nyameneba v. The State: members of a religious sect using Indian
- Abusive or insulting words by themselves, however
hemp but calling it “herbs of life” violent, cannot amount to provocation
• Reliance on custom is no defence. • The test rests on that of person with ordinary character
- “an ordinary person” means an ordinary person of the
community to which the accused belongs [sec 54(2)
5. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE (Sections 30-45) - the defence cannot be called in just because the accused
• Section 30: the justifiability of the use of force is determined is easily irritable or is irascible.
by law.
• Section 31: grounds on which force is justified ii. Apprehension of deadly attack:
- express authority given by an enactment; or “the assumption by the other person, at the commencement of an unlawful
fight, of an attitude manifesting an intention of instantly attacking the
- authority to execute the lawful sentence or order of a accused person with deadly or dangerous means or in a deadly manner.”
Court;
- authority of an officer to keep the peace or of a Court to • If upon the commencement of an unlawful fight the victim
preserve order; puts the accused under an apprehension of a deadly attack, by
- authority to arrest and detain for felony; his actions, then if the accused proceeds to kill the victim in
- authority to arrest, detain, or search a person otherwise pre-emptive defence, his liability will be reduced from
than for felony; murder to manslaughter
- necessity for the prevention of or defence against a
criminal offence; iii. Adultery or sodomy in one’s view
- necessity for defence of property or possession or for an act of adultery committed in the view of the accused person with or by
overcoming the obstruction to the exercise of lawful the wife or the husband, or the criminal offence of unnatural carnal
rights; knowledge committed in the husband’s or wife’s view on the wife, or the
- necessity for preserving order on board a vessel; husband, or child;
- authority to correct a child (below 14 years), ward (below • Entails causing death upon seeing:
16 years) servant, or other similar person, for - the spouse commit adultery or
misconduct; - a person perform sodomy on their spouse or child.
- consent of the person against whom the force is used. • The accused must catch the spouse in the adulterous act or the
person performing sodomy in flagrante delicto (red handed)
• Section 32: Principle of proportionality and necessity. • In the case of a visually challenged person, the expression “in
Force must be the view of”, should be interpreted as “to the hearing of”
- reasonably necessary in the circumstances [Kekey]
- proportional to the harm feared.

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e |5

Kekey: the appellant, a visually impaired old man, suspected his wife of Sec 18(1): A person who attempts to commit a criminal offence
infidelity. He claimed he heard his wife in the room with a man and killed shall not be acquitted on the ground that the criminal offence could
her after she had helped the lover to escape. not be committed according to the intent by reason of the:
• When the defence will not lie: - imperfection or other condition of the means,
- Circumstances in which recent sexual intercourse may be - circumstances under which they are used,
inferred. - circumstances affecting the person against whom, or the
- After the fact knowledge of the adultery or sodomy thing in respect of which the criminal offence is intended to
- mere suspicion be committed,
- A confession of adultery, without more
- A statement by a spouse that he/she intends to commit - absence of that person or thing
adultery
• As with conspiracy, the prosecution can only charge an
iv. violent assault and battery committed on loved one accused with attempt to commit a specific crime
a violent assault and battery committed in the view or presence of the • The actus reus is an overt act, while the requisite mens rea is
accused person on the wife, husband, or child, or parent, or on any intent to commit the substantive crime
other person who is in the presence and in the care or charge of the
accused person. Dua: the appellant during an altercation with his wife allegedly said to
• presence suffices her: "Whether I get the money or not, today I will kill you." He
- the accused need not have actually seen the act subsequently attacked her with a knife and inflicted on her several
injuries.
Held: “It is not necessary that in a charge of attempted murder the
Section 54- exclusionary circumstances prosecution should prove all the elements of the principal crime of
i. where the accused was not in fact deprived of the power of murder, except that the victim did not die. the unlawfulness of the harm
self-control. inflicted is only evidence of an intention to kill… The principal
ii. time lapse or the recovery of self-control ingredient of the offence of attempted murder is the intent to kill.”
…that, after the provocation was given, and before the accused did the
act which caused the harm, a time elapsed or circumstances occurred that • Where the requisite mens rea is recklessness, recklessness as
an ordinary person might have recovered self-control. to consequence may not suffice but recklessness as to
- reaction of the accused must be spontaneous, leaving no circumstance may suffice
room for reflection. - Recklessness as to consequence refers to collateral risk:
- lapse of time or the recovery of one’s composure, where a person is engaged in an activity to achieve a
negatives the element of spontaneity and the requirement specific result, but due to lack of care, the activity results
that the accused must have lost his power of self-control. in an undesired but foreseeable consequence
- cooling down period depends on the circumstances of - Recklessness as to circumstance refers to aims or objects
each case or purposes of an act.
iii. The accused forming a previous intention to harm or kill the
provocateur or to engage him in an unlawful fight before the • The facts are taken as the accused believed them to be
provocation was given. - If, on the supposed facts, he would have been guilty of
- The accused will be deemed to have formed a previous an attempt, then he is guilty of it
intention to cause death where, in the course of a fight, - Thus, a person may be guilty of attempting to commit an
he uses deadly or dangerous means, when the victim has offence even if the facts are such that the commission of
not used or commenced to use deadly or dangerous the offence is impossible.
means. - Shipvuri: the accused was held liable though unknown to him,
- Also applies where the accused intended or prepared to the substance he believed to be a narcotic was in fact harmless
use deadly or dangerous means way before he was powder
provoked • If a person does something believing he is committing a
iv. The instruments or means employed by the accused or the crime, but what he does is in law not a crime, he is not guilty
cruel or other manner in which he used the instruments or of an attempt.
means. • To amount to an attempt, the act done must have been such
- The rationale is that great cruelty, excessive or as may be regarded as an irrevocable step toward the
overwhelming force, or ruthlessness speak of pre- commission of the offence that lends itself to no other
meditated mens rea interpretation.
Section 55- Mistake as to person giving provocation Obeng, (Amissah JA): I think a useful test to apply is to ask
• a lawful act may amount to provocation, notwithstanding its whether the conduct of the accused, looked at objectively, without
lawfulness, if the accused did not believe or had no regard to any subsequent confessions or admissions which the
reasonable means at the time of knowing or had no accused may have made, can be considered as aimed only at the
reasonable ground for supposing that the act was lawful commission of the particular offence.
Section 56- Mistake as to matter of provocation
• General rule is that provocation by a person is not provocation Punishment & Defences of Attempt- Sec 18
to kill a third party • Except in the case of attempted murder, a person convicted of
• Where the accused is provoked by a person and he ends up an attempt is liable to be punished to the same degree as if he
killing another person, he will be entitled to the defence of committed the substantive crime
provocation if it is shown that he killed the other person under • A person under imprisonment for 3 years or more who
the mistaken belief, on reasonable grounds, that that other attempts to commit murder is liable to suffer death. [Sec 49]
person was the provocateur • Where an act which amounts to an attempt to commit one
crime is at the same time the actus reus of another crime (e.g.
INCHOATE OFFENCES attempted rape may be indecent assault) the convict is liable
to be punished either for the attempted offence or for the
• Ordinary meaning: something that is beginning to develop or completed offence
only partly formed • Attempts merge in the substantive offence i.e. where the
• There are also crimes that may be termed as double inchoate substantive offence is actually committed, the accused cannot
offences – e.g. be charged with attempting to commit the offence
▪ conspiracy to abet • Any defence available in respect of the substantive offence is
▪ abetment of a conspiracy also open to the attemptor
1. ATTEMPT- section 18 2. PREPARATION- Section 19
• An attempt includes both:
- an act which if completed will amount to a criminal A person who prepares or supplies, or has in possession, custody, or
offence, control, or in the possession, custody or control of any other person
- a complete act which does not achieve the desired result on behalf of that person, any instrument, materials, or means, with the
intent that the instruments, materials, or means, may be used by that
or object person, or by any other person, in committing a criminal offence by which
life is likely to be endangered, or a forgery, or a felony, commits a

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e |6

criminal offence and is liable to punishment in like manner as if that

person had attempted to commit that criminal offence • If a man helps another in preparation for crimes of a certain
nature with the intention that the other shall commit crimes of
• The mens rea requirement of intent is very important that nature, he abets those crimes when they come to be
- merely having in your possession or in the possession of committed
another person on your behalf, such instruments, • A person who supplies an instrument which is essential to the
materials or means without the requisite mens rea will commission of a crime is liable as an abettor. [National Coal
not fix one with culpability Board v. Gamble]
• The focus of the law is on instruments, materials or means • The abettor’s help may be given before or during the
that cannot innocently be possessed except with the intention commission of the crime.
of committing a crime • Help includes co-operation – e.g. acting as a look-out
• A person who prepares to commit a crime is liable to be • The abettor need not share the mens rea of the principal
punished as though attempted to commit a crime - it is enough if the abettor knows that he is helping with a
crime.
3. ABETMENT- Section 20 Encourage: connotes moral and psychological support to the
principal that fortifies his resolve to commit the crime
• Principal: a person who actually commits a crime • A person may be held as an abettor by being present at the
• Accessory: a person who incites or helps with the commission crime scene and applauding the efforts of the principal
of the crime by the perpetrator, though he does not in fact without actually rendering assistance [Coney]
commit the crime himself • A person does not become an abettor merely by failing to
▪ he is not present (whether actual or constructive) at prevent an offence
the crime scene when the offence is committed
• For a charge of abetment to succeed, the act complained of • The mere presence of a person at the scene of crime does not
must precede or be contemporaneous with the commission of render him guilty of the crime or make him an accomplice
the offence Coney: “Encouragement does not of necessity amount to aiding and
abetting, it may be intentional or unintentional, a man may unwittingly
C.O.P. v. Sarpey: a police constable, allowed a vehicle carrying stolen encourage another in fact by his presence, by misinterpreted words, or
goods to pass him without checking the contents. He was charged with gestures, or by his silence, or non-interference, or he may encourage
and convicted for abetment intentionally by expressions, gestures, or actions intended to signify
SC held: an act constituting abetment of a crime must precede it or must approval. In the latter case he aids and abets, in the former he does not. It
be done at the very time when the offence is committed. Abetment must is no criminal offence to stand by, a mere passive spectator of a crime,
be contemporaneous in place, time and circumstance with the even of a murder. Non-interference to prevent a crime is not itself a crime.
commission of the offence. In this case, Sarpey's conduct although But the fact that a person was voluntarily and purposely present
suspicious, did not amount to abetment. witnessing the commission of a crime, and offered no opposition to it,
though he might reasonably be expected to prevent and had the power so
to do, or at least to express his dissent, might under some circumstances,
Sec 20: A person who, directly or indirectly, instigates, afford cogent evidence upon which a jury would be justified in finding
commands, counsels, procures, solicits, or in any manner that he wilfully encouraged and so aided and abetted. But it would be
purposely aids, facilitates, encourages, or promotes, whether purely a question for the jury whether he did so or not.
by a personal act or presence or otherwise, and a person who does
an act for the purposes of aiding, facilitating, encouraging, or • Presence at the time of the commission of the offence would
promoting the commission of a criminal offence by any other render a person culpable if it is shown that the was on
person, whether known or unknown, certain, or uncertain, purpose, and was intended to lend support to the principal
commits the criminal offence of abetting that criminal offence, • Mere intention to encourage is not in itself enough. There
and of abetting the other person in respect of that criminal offence must be an intention to encourage; and there must also be
encouragement in fact
• To incur liability, there are three general ways of engaging in
these verbs Facilitate: connotes easing or making easy the commission of a
o directly or indirectly crime.
o purposely - For liability to arise, it must be shown that the person
o for the purposes of knew that a crime was going to be committed and he
eased the circumstances for the principal by his act or
Instigate omission
• Instigation speaks of incitement. Promote: knowingly providing the financial or material resources
• it involves words or conduct suggested to another person to the principal to commit the offence
intended to persuade him to adopt a line of criminal conduct
(i.e. sowing criminal ideas) • In all acts of abetment, the abettor must do the act complained
• It may take various forms, such as, suggestion, proposal, of purposely or for the purpose of securing the commission of
request, exhortation, gesture, argument, persuasion, the act of the principal.
inducement, goading, arousal of interest etc. - unintentional or negligent acts that tend to render
• Merely instigating another is enough to ground liability – it assistance to the principal would not do
matters not whether the instigation had any effect on the • The act of abetment must have been done with the intention
intended person. [Ex parte Morgan] of securing a crime – thus, where one is asserting a legal right
or charting a legal course, he is within his rights, and liability
Command: Involves giving instructions to another for that other does not arise even if it was foreseeable that others would take
to commit a crime. It often occurs in the context of service men. advantage of the situation to commit a crime
Counsel: connotes advising or admonishing a person to commit a Consequences of Abetment
crime • Where the offence abetted is actually committed, the abettor
Procure: to get another to commit a crime. is deemed to have committed the offence
• Procurement may take the form of making arrangements for • Sec 65: where a superior officer commands a subordinate to
equipment for the commission of the crime or of hiring or kill unlawfully knowing that the killing will be unlawful:
getting an expert, e.g. professional assassin, to do the job. - if the subordinate officer who was commanded to do the
killing believed that he was under a legal duty to obey
Aiding: involves lending assistance or help to another to commit the command, his liability may be reduced from murder
a crime to manslaughter.
- the superior officer’s liability will not thereby be reduced
Thambiah: a man opened a bank account under a false name and to abetment of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter
description, which account was used to dispose of forged checks. Held
liable for abetment. The man’s actions in opening and maintaining the Punishment for Abetment
account showed an intention that it should be used as a vehicle for • An accessory cannot be guilty of a more serious offence than
presenting forged checks, and that that intention was implemented when the principal
the check came to be presented. At that time, the man became guilty of • An abettor is liable to be punished in the same way as the
abetting its presentation principal where the offence is actually committed, or the
P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary
 P a g e |7

principal is apprehended during the continuance of the • The main determinant is the element of agreement geared
endeavour to commit the offence toward the commission of a crime
• Where the offence is not actually committed, the abettor is - A legal fiction is instituted that the very plot or plan or
also punishable in the same manner as if the offence had agreement to commit a crime is both an actus reus and a
actually been committed mens rea in itself, hence a crime
• However, where the offence is not actually committed and the • Acts not punishable:
offence abetted carries the death penalty, the abettor is liable - Harboring of criminal intentions in one’s mind
to suffer imprisonment for life - Mere communication of a criminal intent, is not a crime
• If a person, who is within the jurisdiction, abets the doing of - Communication of one’s criminal intentions to another,
an act beyond the jurisdiction, which act if done in the without more.
jurisdiction would be a criminal offence, that person is liable • The offence of conspiracy can be committed in respect of all
for abetment substantive offences
• Sec 24(2): a court having jurisdiction to try the substantive
Where different offence is committed [Sect 21] offender also has jurisdiction to try the inchoate offender
• The accessory is responsible only for crimes that are - Where a new offence is created, there could be liability
committed within the contemplated purpose of the crime he for a conspiracy to commit that offence although the
abetted statute creating the offence does not specifically say so
- the abettor is liable for abetting the offence he intended [Ex parte Ofosu-Amaah (No.2)]
to abet and those which are within the scope of what he • Sections 23(1) and 24(2) are of general application – thus the
intended to abet prosecution can add a conspiracy charge to any offence
- Indices to determine liability: whether the offence
actually committed was • Elements
▪ a probable consequence of the endeavour i. Plurality of Minds: the offence contemplates the
▪ substantially the same as that which the abettor involvement of at least two persons since a person cannot
intended to abet agree with himself
▪ is within the scope of the scope of the abetment - A man can conspire with his wife
• A person, who abets a riot or unlawful assembly with the - The other party to the agreement must be a person
knowledge that the rioters or unlawful assemblers intend to
use or are likely to use violence, is liable for any offence Blay: the appellant took a sum of money from the complainant claiming
committed by any of the rioters or unlawful assemblers in that he would invoke a spirit which could multiply that sum. A took the
executing the riot or unlawful assembly, although the abettor C to the beach to perform said rituals. On 2 of the occasions, the A spoke
did not intend to abet the particular offence that was and a voice replied to the hearing of the accused. The bag of “money”
committed aside of the riot or the unlawful assembly given to C turned out to be a bag of newspapers cut in currency notes. A
was found liable for conspiracy to defraud.
Defences to Abetment- Sec 20 Held (On appeal): the charge of conspiracy could not be sustained
because conspiracy involved an agreement between two or more
• An abettor may be entitled to a defence, although his co- human beings and not between one human being and an unknown
abettors or the principal is not entitled to that defence voice or spirit.
• where the act of the principal amounts to no crime, the abettor
would be entitled to an acquittal. • Person: implies that one may be held liable with conspiring
• There are two possible defences to abetment with a legal person.
i. countermand or revocation - May be a natural person or a corporate person [sec 1]
ii. withdrawal • Since one person cannot be guilty of conspiracy, on a charge
• a secret decision to withdraw will not do of conspiracy, if all the accused are acquitted except one, the
“a person who changed his mind about participating in the commission remaining one must also be acquitted, unless it is proved that
of an offence but who failed to communicate his intention to the other
persons engaged in the offence did not thereby effectively withdraw from he conspired with some other person not named in the charge
the commission of the offence and was liable as a secondary party. In or at large
order to escape liability for the commission of the crime, the secondary - this rule only applies where all the accused are tried
party had at least unequivocally to communicate his withdrawal to the together.
other party. [Rook] • 1 person can be held guilty of conspiracy where the co-
conspirators are unknown; on the run or are not amenable to
Trial for Abetment- Sec 20 justice, e.g. diplomats
An abettor may be tried
• before, with, or after the trial of the principal Bossman: as a result of adverse findings made against the accused
• even if the principal is dead or is otherwise not amenable to persons at the Ollennu Commission of Inquiry into irregularities and
justice malpractices in the issue of import licences, the accused were charged
• before, with, or after any other abettor, whether the abettor with conspiring with the Minister of Trade to extort money, and to
commit wilful oppression. One conspirator was acquitted.
and any other abettor abetted each other in respect of the It was held that in that case, the remaining conspirator should also be
criminal offence or not, and whether they abetted the same or acquitted on the charge.
different parts of the criminal offence
• On question of whether a person can be held liable for
conspiracy where the co-conspirator is an undercover police
4. DUTY TO PREVENT FELONY- Section 22 officer. Two schools of thought:
• A person who, knowing that another person designs to - The unilateral approach: The law does not require that
commit, or is committing a felony, fails to use all reasonable the agreement must be genuine. if the individual in
means to prevent the commission or completion of the felony, question intends to join with others to commit a crime
commits a misdemeanour and he believes he has so joined, this should be sufficient
to found liability regardless of the actual fact of
agreement.
5. CONSPIRACY- Sections 23 & 24 ▪ it does not detract from the culpable state of mind
Section 23: Where two or more persons agree to act together of that individual
with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a - The bilateral approach: based on what is termed the
criminal offence, whether with or without previous concert or “defence of impossibility” – which is to the effect that
deliberation, each of them commits a conspiracy to commit or abet the two minds must both be culpable for any one of them
the criminal offence to be guilty of conspiracy. This is because the thrust of
the offence is the agreement – so if one is in fact agreeing
• What constitutes conspiracy: to the proposition, but the other is indeed pretending to
- agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime be agreeing, the two minds are seemingly ad idem but
- agreement by two or more persons to abet a crime factually at cross purposes
- 2 or more persons acting together to commit a crime
- two or more persons acting together to abet the ii. The Agreement: The crime of conspiracy is complete as
commission of a crime soon as the words of the agreement are spoken
- The conspirators will be liable even if

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e |8

▪ the crime plotted is to be committed in the future Lamptey came to Accra in May 1962, and that the attempted assassination
▪ the plot has started to fall apart of the President at Kulungugu on the 1st August, 1962, and the series of
bomb outrages perpetrated in various parts of Accra thereafter were in
iii. Intent: (requisite mens rea): the two minds must agree on furtherance of the objects of the agreement.
the criminal object.
- Liability arises only where the person assents to or ii. Wheel or Umbrella Spoke Conspiracy
approves of the criminal scheme - A single person at the center enrols all the other members who
- Knowledge of the existence of the agreement must be remain unknown to each other
proved against each alleged participant - All the other members are unrelated except that they are linked
- A person becomes a member of a conspiracy only by his to a common co-conspirator who is the hub connecting the
own acts or declarations others like a bicycle wheel or umbrella frame
• When a person will not be liable: - In such a case, each conspiracy is treated as a separate count
- Merely being informed of the conspiracy and is thus severable or separable from the others
- Merely listening in on a discussion of a criminal
adventure Scope of Liability
- The mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime, • The effect of sec 24(1) read together with sec 23(1),
without any implicating evidence especially the phrase “whether without a previous concert or
- If he dissociates himself from the agreement even if he deliberation” is that all persons engaged in a conspiracy are
was present when the agreement was procured deemed to have approved all actions thereunder
- i.e. The general rule is that the acts of a co-conspirator in
• Proving the fact of agreement furtherance of the conspiracy are binding on the others
- an uphill task because it is rare in conspiracy cases to find • For a conspirator to be held liable for the acts of a co-
direct evidence of the agreement. conspirator, the acts of the co-conspirator must be in
- The fact of agreement may be proved by evidence of furtherance of the conspiracy
subsequent acts, done in concert, and so indicating a - each of the participants is answerable for the acts done in
previous agreement pursuance of the joint adventure including such acts as
were incidental to and necessary for the achievement of
Commissioner of Police v. Afari: In that case, the appellants were the adventure and were in the contemplation or ought to
charged with conspiracy to defraud by false pretences. It was argued have been in the contemplation of the participants at the
that there was no evidence of an agreement between the appellants and time the adventure was embarked upon
that since the only evidence adduced was in respect of the substantive
charge of fraud by false pretences, it was irregular to include in the - The other participants will not be liable for the
charge a count of conspiracy. unauthorized acts or for acts that go beyond the scope the
The SC held that the law of conspiracy as contained in section 23 (1) of adventure
Act 29 is wider in scope and in content than the English law on that Teye alias Bardjo: appellants together with two other persons, agreed
subject. That in Ghana, the offence of conspiracy consists not only on a joint enterprise to break into and enter the decd's house to steal
in the criminal agreement between two minds, but also acting therefrom. In the course of the execution of the joint enterprise, the 3rd
together in furtherance of a common criminal objective. A went beyond what had been agreed upon, by killing the decd because
- This decision suggests that often-times where two or the deceased had recognised him and mentioned his name. It was held
more persons act together, it presupposes that there was that he alone should be responsible for the death of the deceased.
an agreement of their minds contemporaneous to their
act, unless it can be shown that their acting together Defences to a Charge of Conspiracy
was merely by chance or plainly fortuitous • no defence to a charge of conspiracy
- The agreement may be inferred from the conduct or • A conspirator cannot countermand: i.e. to revoke, cancel or
statements of the accused. rescind a decision
• Conspiracy is an offence that is committed the moment two
Azametsi: all the appellants and the dec’d belonged to one fishing or more people agree so even if the person countermands, it
group of which the first appellant was the head. In a discussion at their is too late because the agreement has been reached.
meeting that the time for their yearly sacrifice was at hand, a decision was
secretly reached by some of the members of the group that the deceased • Recanting by changing one’s mind and abandoning the acts
was the one who ought to be offered for the sacrifice. The dec’d was necessary in carrying out the proposed criminal venture,
suddenly gripped while walking home and taken to the house of the first cannot undo the act of previous agreement. [Boahene]
appellant, where he was killed and buried in a bathroom in that house.
Held: That it is not always easy to prove agreement by evidence, but it Section 24: Punishment for Conspiracy
can be inferred from the conduct of and statements made by the accused • Conspiracy does not merge in the actual or substantive
persons. In the present case if the evidence of the first appellant's wife offence. A conspirator is liable to be punished:
that the first appellant was present during the killing of the deceased and - for the substantive offense where the offence is actually
later procured other persons to dump the dead body in the sea was committed
accepted, then the presence of the first appellant in the bathroom where - as if he abetted the commission of the offence where the
the killing took place, could not be accidental but was in furtherance of substantive offence is not committed,
the common purpose.
• Sec 21: punishment for abetment is the same as punishment
for the substantive offence, except in the case of murder
Forms of agreement: The agreement may be reached with - Therefore, in effect, a conspirator is punished in the same
different people at different times and places way as the perpetrator of the substantive offence,
i. Chain Conspiracy whether or not the offence is actually committed
- All the individuals are involved in one conspiracy and linked
by a common purpose although they may have been recruited Jurisdiction -Sec 23
at various times or places (i.e. joined together as a chain link) • where the person is within the jurisdiction and agrees with
- They may not even be acquainted or have corresponded with another person who is outside the jurisdiction for the
one another. commission of or abetment of a crime in the jurisdiction or
▪ Each member may only know the one who outside the jurisdiction, the courts have jurisdiction to try the
enrolled him or the one he enrolled matter. [Otchere]
- A person who joins or participates in the execution of a • Sec 23(3): For this purpose, “criminal offence” means an act
conspiracy which was previously planned before his which, if committed within the jurisdiction, would be a
admission, is equally as guilty as the planners even if that criminal offence
person did not take part in the formulation of the plan or did
not know when or who originated the conspiracy.
• The general rule is that in a chain conspiracy the participants
are liable for the whole and not just the part they played
Otchere: 5 accused persons, as members of the United Party in exile,
were alleged to have held meetings in Lomé where it was agreed to
overthrow the Government of Ghana by unlawful means and also that the
last three accused persons subsequently joined in the said conspiracy. The
prosecution maintained that in furtherance of the said agreement Obetsebi

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e |9

FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ii. Manslaughter caused by Negligence

• These are made of crimes constituting physical harm to the Section 51: A person who causes the death of another person by
body of a person an unlawful harm commits manslaughter, but if the harm causing
• Homicide is not a crime per se. It is a term used to describe a the death is caused by negligence that person has not
state of affairs committed manslaughter unless the negligence amount to a
- It is the killing of a person whether lawfully (Non- reckless disregard for human life.
Culpable homicide) or unlawfully (Culpable homicide)
- The act or acts constituting homicide must have been • Negligence simpliciter: “A person causes an event
done intentionally, recklessly or as a result of gross negligently if, without intending to cause the event, he causes
negligence it by voluntary act, done without such skill and care as are
reasonably necessary under the circumstances.” [Sec 12]
- for an unlawful harm caused by negligence to amount to
1. MURDER (section 46-47) (intentional homicide) manslaughter, it must amount to a reckless disregard for
• A person who commits murder is liable to suffer death. [S 46] human life
• Section 51: negligence amounting to a reckless disregard
Section 47: “whoever intentionally causes the death of another for human life.
person by any unlawful harm is guilty of murder, unless his crime - it must connote a lack of due care, heedlessness and even
is reduced to manslaughter by reason of extreme provocation, or rashness
other partial excuse, as mentioned in section 52.” - The concept of recklessness denotes either:
▪ doing an act which amounts to the taking of
• To establish murder, it must be proved that: unjustified risk, or
i. a death has occurred ▪ engaging in conduct which involves the taking of
ii. the death was by harm inflicted by the accused unjustified risk even though the actor does not know
- “harm”: any bodily hurt, disease, or disorder, whether of the risk
permanent or temporary [Section 1] - The test of what constitutes recklessness is an objective
one.
iii. the harm was unlawful • Where a person is under a legal duty to prevent harm to
- “unlawful harm”: harm which is caused intentionally or another person, that other person will be guilty of
negligently, without any of the justifications [Section 76] manslaughter if the harm which he failed to prevent results in
- if the harm was caused with some justification, the the death of the other person [R v Instan]
accused will be exculpated from liability for murder - So as long as it is shown that the failure to perform the
duty recognized by law amounted to a reckless disregard
iv. the accused had the intention to kill the victim for human life
- The mens rea is an intention to cause death.
- Intent to kill is may be inferred from iii. homicide caused by unlawful harm without intention to kill
▪ the nature, manner and circumstances of the harm.
▪ the ferocity or brutality of the act
▪ the instrument or weapon used in killing or the 3. GENOCIDE (Section 49A)
manner in which the harm from which death • A person who commits genocide is liable on conviction to be
results is inflicted sentenced to death.
- where a person does an act in good faith, for the purposes • A person commits genocide where, with intent to destroy, in
of medical or surgical treatment, an intent to cause death whole or in part, any national, ethical, racial or religious
shall not be presumed from the fact the act was or group, that person:
appeared likely to cause death [section 67] - kills members of the group;
- causes serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
• A judge has a duty to direct on manslaughter in a murder case group;
- deliberately inflicts on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring its physical destruction in whole or in
2. MANSLAUGHTER (Section 50-51) part;
(unintentional homicide) - imposes measures intended to prevent births within the
• Manslaughter is a first-degree felony [Sec. 50] group;
• Manslaughter is various kinds of unlawful killing short of - forcibly transfers children of the group to another group.
murder
- Murder is associated with intent to kill whereas
manslaughter is associated with killing simpliciter 4. ABETMENT OF & ATTEMPTED SUICIDE
without any intent to do so (SECTION 57)
- A person convicted of manslaughter is liable to • The abettor of suicide, whether or not the suicide is actually
imprisonment for life or any lesser term. [section 296 of committed commits a first-degree felony.
Act 30] • The attemptor of suicide, whose crime is a misdemeanour
3 Types of Manslaughter
i. Murder Reduced to Manslaughter (Sec.47; 52) 5. ABORTION (SECT. 58)
• Reduced by reason of extreme provocation or other matter of • Abortion or miscarriage is the premature expulsion or
partial excuse removal of conception from the uterus or womb before the
• Section 52: Determining Circumstances period of gestation is completed.
- deprivation of the power of self-control by extreme • The law does not make the abortion itself a crime. The crime
provocation given by the deceased [section 53] consists in an act done with intent to procure or cause an
- justifiable causing of harm to the deceased and that in abortion
causing this justifiable harm he caused excess harm • The offence covers where:
resulting from such terror of immediate death or grievous i. a pregnant woman uses any means with intent to procure
harm as in fact deprived him for the time being of the her own miscarriage
power of self-control ii. anyone else unlawfully uses means, with such intent
- acting in the belief, in good faith and on reasonable - the offence is committed
grounds, that one is under a legal duty to cause the death ▪ where the effort has been made for that purpose even
or to do the act if the mother is not pregnant
- a woman, causing the death of her child of less than 12 ▪ a woman is induced to cause an abortion
months old, at a time when the balance of her mind was ▪ a woman is induced to consent to causing an abortion
disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered is an offence
from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason • The drug or noxious substance administered to cause the
of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the abortion or miscarriage need not be poisonous
child (lactational psychosis) • What constitutes an offence

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 10

- Aiding and abetting a woman to cause an abortion ▪ A concealment from a particular person or persons
- Attempting to cause abortion only does not come under section 62.
- Supplying or procuring any item or implement or drug Donkor v. The Republic: Appellant, an 18-year-old girl became
knowing that it is intended to be used to cause abortion pregnant by a man she claimed to be her boyfriend. There was some
• The mens rea of the offence is intentional conduct interference with the pregnancy by this boyfriend. As a result, the baby
was expelled and it was found in a public latrine. She said she had been
afraid upon seeing the blood and was headed to her friend’s house to tell
Lawful Abortion - Section 58(2) her.
Held: the offence of concealment was not a strict liability offence. To
• Abortion is lawful if the person committing it is: succeed on the facts of the case, the prosecution needed to prove the
- a registered medical practitioner specializing in following:
gynaecology - That the Appellant was delivered of a baby,
- That she either secretly deposited it or abandoned it in the
- Other registered medical practitioner public latrine,
▪ in a Government Hospital - That the foetus was six months or above, and
▪ a registered private hospital or clinic That she deposited or abandoned the same with the view to
• Circumstances for lawful abortion: concealing its birth, death or existence from the whole world other
i. where the pregnancy is the result of a crime than those who were accomplices to the crime
- it must be requested by the victim or her next of kin or • What constitutes secret disposition and abandonment is a
the person in loco parentis question of fact depending on the circumstances.
ii. where the continuance of the pregnancy would result in
injury to the pregnant woman
iii. where there is a substantial risk of abnormality or disease
in the child when born or later develop an abnormality NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE
- the abnormality or disease must be a serious one PERSON
iv. Any act which is done in good faith and without
negligence, for the purposes of medical or surgical 1. CRIMINAL HARM TO THE PERSON (Sect 69 – 83)
treatment of a pregnant woman is justifiable, although it • Causing harm is a second-degree felony [Section 69]
causes or is intended to cause abortion or miscarriage, or • Inflicting a disease or disorder on the victim will fix the
premature delivery, or the death of the child [Sec. 67(2)] accused with liability [section 1]
- mental distress alone may not be sufficient unless
accompanied by a mental disorder
6. CHILD AS OBJECT OF HOMICIDE • The harm must have been caused intentionally and unlawfully
(Section 60-61; 66) Brobbey v. The Republic: “an essential element for the constitution of
• For a child to be the object of homicide it should have been the crime of causing harm contrary to section 69 is that the harm or
completely brought forth alive from the body of the damage must not only be intentional but also unlawful. Mere harm or
mother damage without more is insufficient.”
• It is not necessary
a) that a circulation of blood, independent of the mother’s i. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) (Section 69A)
circulation, should have commenced in the child, or • But now, a person who performs FGM commits a second
b) that the child should have breathed, felony and liable to imprisonment of not less than three years
c) that it should have been detached from the mother by
severance of the umbilical cord. ii. A person who you intentionally hinders another person from:
• It is murder or manslaughter, to cause death to happen to a - Escaping from a wrecked vessel,
child after it becomes a person, within the meaning of this - Lawful personal protection
section, by means of harm caused to it while it was in its - Another person against harm,
mother’s womb (i.e. before it became a person) Attorney- will be deemed to have intentionally caused harm to him if he
General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994 suffers any harm. [section 83]
• Whoever intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to a living
child during the time of its birth shall be guilty of second- iii. Use of offensive weapon (Section 70)
degree felony [section 60] • A person who intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to
- The time of birth includes the whole period from the any other person by the use of an offensive weapon commits
commencement of labor until the time when the child so a first-degree felony.
becomes a person that it may be murder or manslaughter • The culpability of the accused depends on the nature of the
to cause its death [section 61] object or the manner in which it was used
• Section 61: The law presumes that harm was caused to the • One test for determining whether an object is offensive is
child before its death; when death occurs where: whether it can be used for an aggressive purpose
- harm is caused to a child during the time of its birth,
- upon the discovery of the concealed body or the child,
harm is found to have been caused to it iv. Exposing child to danger (Section 71)
• A person commits a misdemeanour who unlawfully
- exposes a child to danger
7. CONCEALMENT OF BODY OF CHILD AT BIRTH - abandons a child under twelve years;
- exposes a physically or mentally handicapped child to
(Section 62-63) danger
• Section 62: It is an offence for any person to conceal the body - abandons a physically or mentally handicapped child in
of a child who has been brought forth, whether such child was a manner that is likely to cause harm to the child.
born alive or stillborn, with the intent to conceal the fact of its • The child should be under eighteen years
birth, existence, or death, or the manner or cause of its death
• This is not a strict liability offence v. Negligently Causing Harm (Section 72)
- The mens rea is the intention to conceal the fact of birth,
existence, or death, or the manner or cause of the death • The punishment is lesser than if you intentionally cause harm
• Section 63: For a concealment to amount to an offence under • The prosecution needs to establish that although the accused
section 62, it matters not that the concealment was intended did not intend to cause harm, he caused the harm by a
to be permanent or temporal voluntary act, done without the skill and care that are
- The abandonment of the body of a child in a public place reasonably necessary under the circumstances and that the
is concealment if the purpose of the abandonment is to accused did so cause the harm without any justification
conceal the fact of the child’s birth or existence recognized under our criminal law [Sections 12 & 76]
- The offence does not arise unless the child was at least • The degree of negligence need not amount to a reckless
than 6 months old in the mother’s womb. disregard for human life
- There must be an intention to conceal the birth, existence,
or death of a child from the whole world, other than the vi. Negligently Causing Harm- while operating or
persons who abetted or consented to the concealment engaged in a dangerous thing (Section 73)

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 11

• A person who negligently endangers the life of any other (a) who is actually discharging the duties belonging to that office
person, whiles operating a dangerous thing commits a or employment, or
misdemeanour (b) who is acting as if under that agreement or undertaking with
• Circumstances: Where the person: respect to another person.
- Is solely or partly in charge of a steam-engine, (2) A person is not excused from liability for failure to discharge
machinery, ship, boat, or dangerous thing or matter of a duty on the grounds that another person is also under the same
any kind, duty, whether jointly or independently and whether on the same
- Has undertaken or is engaged in medical or surgical or on a different ground.
treatment of a person,
- Has undertaken or is engaged in the dispensing, Section 81- Exceptions to causing an event
supplying, selling, administering, or giving away of a
medicine or a poisonous or dangerous matter. 1. a person has not caused harm to another person by omitting
• A person who in good faith, for the purposes of medical or to supply the other person with the necessaries of health and
surgical treatment, intentionally causes harm to another life, unless it is proved against that person that the other
person which, in the exercise of reasonable skill and care person, by reason of age or physical or mental state, or by
according to the circumstances of the case, is or ought to have reason of control by the accused person, could not by
known to be plainly improper, is liable to punishment as if the reasonable exertion have avoided the harm; [R v Instan]
harm had been caused negligently [Section 82] 2. the disease or disorder which a person suffers as the inward
effect of grief, terror, or any other emotion is not harm
caused by another person, although that emotion has been
caused by that other person whether with intent to cause
vii. Threat of Harm or Death (Section 74-75) harm or otherwise;
• To be culpable for threat of harm, it must be established that 3. the harm which a person suffers by execution of a sentence
the accused intended to put the victim in fear of an unlawful of a Court in consequences of a prosecution instituted,
harm [Sect 74] prosecuted, or procured, or of evidence given or procured to
• To be culpable for threat of death, it must be established that be given, by another person, whether in good faith or not, is
the accused intended to put the victim in fear of death [S. 75] caused by that other person; and
• Section 17: definition of “threat” includes
- a threat of criminal force or harm, • a person is not excused from liability to punishment for
- an offer to abstain from doing, or to procure any other causing harm to another person, on the grounds that the other
person to abstain from doing, anything anything the person personally, by trespass, negligence, act, or omission,
threat of which is a threat of criminal force or harm contributed to causing the harm.
- It is immaterial whether the matter of the threat will be
▪ executed by the person using the threat or
▪ against or in relation to the person to whom the threat 2. ASSAULT (Sections 84-88)
is used, or • A person who unlawfully assaults another person commits a
▪ by, or against, or in relation to any other person. misdemeanour. [Sect 84]
- A threat may be conveyed to a person
▪ by words, or by writing, or in any other manner, • Sect 85- Different kinds of assault. “assaults” includes
▪ directly, or through any other person, or in any other - assault and battery,
manner. - assault without actual battery,
- imprisonment.
Under sections 69, 69A and 70, the requirement is that the • An assault is unlawful unless it is justified on one of the
accused must have engaged in an overt or positive act grounds mentioned in Chapter One i.e. justifiable use of force
• The required mens rea, is intentional conduct
viii. Causing Harm by Omission (Section 77-80) • The prosecution need not specify the specific assault
Section 77: A person causes harm by an omission, if harm is - the nature of the assault may be deduced from the facts
caused by that person’s omission to perform a duty for preventing of each case
harm as mentioned in section 78, and not in any other case.
• A person is only culpable for harm caused by omission if he i. Assault and Battery (Section 86)
is under a duty to act Section 86: A person makes an assault and battery on another
• Section 78: A duty to act may arise by: person, if without the other person’s consent, and with the
- Imposition of law, intention of causing harm, pain, or fear, or annoyance to the other
- Voluntary assumption or under a contract, person, or of exciting the other person to anger, that person
- Virtue of a position, forcibly touches the other person.
- A lawful order of a court,
- Lawful order of a person • The contact may be direct or indirect through an involuntary
agent
Section 79: Duty to give access to the necessaries of health and • Two forms of intention must be present.
life. Who is under that duty? - Intentional contact
- a spouse to the other spouse who is actually under the - Made with the intention of causing harm, fear, pain or
control of that spouse; annoyance or exciting to anger
- a parent to the parent’s child actually under the control • The requirement of “forcible touching” does not mean that
of the parent, the contact should have been done vigorously or violently
▪ child must be underage or without capacity to be able - Once the contact is unpermitted, there is notional
to obtain those necessaries; forcibility
- a guardian of a child to the child actually under the - The use of any degree of force against the person will
control of the guardian. suffice.
- A woman, who is delivered of a child to the newly-born • Defences
- A person who wrongfully imprisons another person to - Consent i.e. if the assault is transient and trifling
that other person ▪ No consent for grievous bodily harm.
- A person who has agreed or undertaken to supply any of ▪ where consent has been obtained by deceit, an
the necessaries of health and life to another person intention will be inferred, to make the act of
whether that other person is a servant, an apprentice assault a criminal assault
- A person lawfully charged by another ▪ A person who is insensible or unconscious or
• “Necessaries of health and life” includes proper food, lacks the capacity to give consent will be deemed
clothing, shelter, warmth, medical or surgical treatment, and to be a victim of assault
any other matter which is reasonably necessary for the - Where the accused and the victim were engaged in a
preservation of the health and life of a person. game or sport that is authorized by law and is
conducted in a way not serious or dangerous to life
Section 80: Explanation as to office • A person is touched if:
The duty is sufficiently constituted in the case of a person: - her body is touched

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 12

- any clothes or other thing in contact with her body or • A parent could be liable for kidnapping his own child if there
with the clothes upon her body are or is touched, is a court order granting custody to the other parent.
although her body is not actually touched

ii. Assault without Actual Battery (Section 87) 4. ABDUCTION (Sections 91-92)
Section 87: A person commits an assault without actual battery • whoever abducts a child under the 18 years of age commits
on another person, if by an act apparently done in commencement a misdemeanour.
of an assault and battery, he intentionally puts the other person in • Actus reus consists of either:
fear of an instant assault and battery i. unlawfully taking the child from the lawful possession,
care or charge of a person, or
• States of mind: ii. detaining the child and preventing him or her from
- the victim must expect that force is about to be applied returning to the lawful possession, care or charge of a
to him, person
- the actor must intend to create that expectation • Mens rea is intention. Intent to either:
• No blow need be struck i. Deprive a person entitled to the possession or control of
- The actor need only do something inducing the victim to the child
believe that he will instantly receive a blow or other ii. Cause the child to be carnally known by any other person
application of force unless he does something to avoid it iii. Cause the child to be unnaturally carnally known by any
other person
- A person can make an assault without actual battery by • The accused must have known, or had grounds for believing
moving, or causing any person, animal or matter to that the child was in the possession, control, care, or charge
move, towards another person, although he, or such of another person.
person, animal, or matter, is not yet within such a • Possession is legal possession and not ordinary possession
distance from the other person as that an assault and - being in possession, care, control or charge of a
battery can be made child continues although the child is absent
• The apprehension of an instant assault and battery must be from actual possession…, if the absence is for a
reasonable. special purpose, and the absence is not intended
- It must be apparent from all the circumstances to the by the parent or guardian to exclude or
other person that the accused has the ability or means to extinguish the possession…
carry out the assault and battery • What is not a defence i.e. wholly immaterial:
• a conditional threat amounts to assault i. The consent of the victim.
- e.g. “If you don’t move, I’ll break your neck” - it would not inure to the benefit of the accused where the
• Mere words alone cannot suffice, unless the words are victim goes to the accused willingly and the accused
accompanied by some action apparently indicating an keeps or prevents him/her from leaving
intention to commit an assault and battery ii. Mistaken belief concerning the age of the victim
iii. Imprisonment (Section 88)
Section 88: A person imprisons another person if, intentionally 5. CHILD STEALING (section 93-94)
and without the other person’s consent, he detains the other person • A person who steals a person under 14 years, whether with
in a particular place, of whatever extent or character and whether or without his/her consent commits a second-degree felony
enclosed or not, or compels him to move or be carried in any • What is not a defence i.e. wholly immaterial:
particular direction i. Consent of the victim to being stolen.
• Circumstances: Detention or compulsion constituted, ii. The gender of the victim
- by force or by a physical obstruction to a person’s escape, iii. That the victim deceived the accused as to his/her age
- by creating the belief that the other person cannot depart iv. That he did not know or believe the victim to be under
from a place, or refuse to move or be carried in a 14 years
particular direction, without overcoming force or v. That he had no means of knowing the victim’s age
incurring danger or harm, pain or annoyance, • Elements [sec 94]:
- by creating the belief that the other person is under legal i. That the victim was under 14 years.
arrest ii. That the accused unlawfully took or detained the victim
- by creating the belief to the other person of immediate with intent to
imprisonment if the other person does not consent to do, - deprive the victim of the possession or control to
or to abstain from doing, an act. which another person is entitled, or
• It is unnecessary for the prosecution to prove actual violence - steal anything on or about the body of the victim
- cause harm to the victim
• It is enough for the prosecution to show that the accused is
iv. Cruel customs/ practices in relation to not the person entitled to the possession, care, control or
bereaved spouses (Section 88A) charge of the person stolen
• A person who compels a bereaved spouse or a relative of the
spouse to undergo a custom or practice that is cruel in nature Section 95- Special Provisions with respect to the
commits a misdemeanour offences of Abduction & Child Stealing
• A custom or practice is cruel in nature if it amounts to assault • It is no defence for the accused to assert that the victim
and battery, assault without actual battery or imprisonment consented.
• It suffices if the accused persuaded, aided, or encouraged the
victim to depart or not to return
3. KIDNAPPING (Sections 89-90) • The intent may be to deprive a person of the possession or
• Kidnapping is punishable as a second-degree felony. control of a child either permanent or temporarily.
• Elements [Section 90]: • It is a good defence, that the accused took the child in the
i. imprisoning a person and taking him out of the jurisdiction belief that he was entitled by law as a parent or guardian or
of the court without his consent (i.e. outside of the country) by virtue of any legal right, to take or detain the child for the
ii. unlawfully imprisoning a person within the jurisdiction in purposes of which he took or detained the child
such a manner • It is no defence for the accused to assert that he did not know
- that prevents him from or believe, or had no means of knowing that the age of the
▪ applying to the court for release or victim was under 18 or 14.
▪ discovering to any other person the place of the • Whatever be the case, the accused is not exempted from
imprisonment, liability for abduction or child stealing as long as he took or
- that prevents a person entitled to have access from detained the victim for an immoral purpose
discovering the place where the other person is
imprisoned
• No specific intent or motive is required
• Victim may be a person of any age or gender

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 13

6. ABANDONMENT OF INFANT (Section 96) ▪ i.e. where the victim is overpowered or cowed into
• Infant is a child under 5 years of age submission by the accused.
• “Abandon” is to leave the child to its fate [R v. Boulden] ▪ reluctant acquiescence is no consent
• A person may be liable for the offence where the person is: - the victim was under a permanent or temporal incapacity
i. bound by law, or an agreement or employment to keep resulting from intoxication or any other cause, as to
charge of the infant abandons the infant render her incapable of understanding the nature or
- The accused need not be the one who initially consequences of the sexual intercourse to which she has
abandoned the child but that if he becomes aware that consented
the child has been abandoned, he is duty bound to - the accused knows the victim is asleep and therefore does
retrieve the child from that state. Liability arises for not resist because she is, in that condition, incapable of
failure so to retrieve the child from that state resisting
- It is immaterial whether the accused applied force
R v. White: A woman who was living apart from her husband, and who - A person who has given her consent may also revoke it
had the actual custody of their child, under 2 years of age, brought the including during the subsistence of a marriage [S. 42(g)]
child and left it at the father's door, telling him she had done so. He - Sexual intercourse is a continuing act ending only
knowingly allowed it to remain lying outside his door, and subsequently withdrawal. Therefore, the accused is guilty of rape if he
until it was removed by a policeman, the child then being cold and stiff. remains in the female after she has stopped consenting
- The victim may withdraw consent even after heavy
Held: Though the father did have the actual custody and possession of the petting.
child, he was morally and legally bound to provide for, maintain and
protect it. His allowing it to remain where he did was an abandonment iv. The victim must be 16 years and above
and exposure of the child whereby its life was endangered, within the
meaning of the v. The victim must be female
statute. "

ii. unlawfully in possession of the infant abandons it 2. DEFILEMENT- (statutory rape) (Section 101;106)
• There is not duty on the prosecution to prove any intent on Section 101: defilement is the natural or unnatural carnal
the part of the accused. knowledge of a child under sixteen years
- The mere act of abandonment is enough
7. HUMAN TRAFFICKING • Unnatural carnal knowledge is sexual intercourse with a
Human Trafficking Act, 2005 (Act 694) person in an unnatural way. [section 104(2)]
• The offence of defilement is gender neutral
• Section 1: human trafficking means, inter alia, the • Punishment: term of imprisonment Min. 5 years Max 25 years
recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, trading or • Defilement arises in one of two circumstances:
receipt of a persons within and across national borders by the i. where the act is done without the consent of the victim in
use of abduction circumstances which will amount to rape if the victim
• Human trafficking is prohibited. Penalty of not less than five were sixteen years or more, and
years [section 2] ii. where the act is done with the consent of the victim
• A person who provides a person for the purpose of trafficking, • Consent is irrelevant
has committed an offence [section 3] • Section 106: The owner or occupier of premises or a person
• A person is under a duty to inform the authorities if he has acting or assisting in the management of the premises who
information concerning trafficking induces or knowingly permits a child of less than 16 years of
- Failure to inform makes one liable for a fine or a term of age to resort to or be in or on the premises to defiled commits
imprisonment not less than 12 months or both a criminal offence.
- Liable for the same amount of prison term as the defiler
- Defence: that the accused person had reasonable cause to
SEXUAL OFFENCES believe that the child was of or above 16 years of age.

1. RAPE (Section 97-99) 3. CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF IDIOT (Section 102)

• First degree-felony. Min. 5 years and Max 25 years [Sect. 97]
• Elements:
Section 98: “rape is the carnal knowledge of a female of sixteen i. carnal or unnatural carnal knowledge of an idiot,
years or above without her consent” imbecile or a mental patient
ii. Who is in or under the care of a mental hospital
• The mens rea is an intent to rape iii. With or without the consent of the victim
- The lack of consent from the victim reinforces the - Consent induced from a person in a state of
intentional conduct of the accused. incapacity from idiocy to an act is void [Sec 14(a)]
• Actus reus is insertion of the penis into the vagina. iv. That the accused knew at the time sexual intercourse that
the victim has a mental incapacity
• Elements: That: • the age of the victim is immaterial
i. Someone had carnal knowledge of the victim.
- The sexual act must be “per vaginum” 4. INDECENT ASSAULT (Section 103)
- The prosecution must prove that there was penetration. • Misdemeanour punishable by a term of imprisonment of not
- the degree of penetration by the male organ of the female less than six months
organ is irrelevant • Forcible touching or contact with a person that does not
▪ Section 99: “… the carnal knowledge is complete on amount to carnal or unnatural carnal knowledge.
the least degree of penetration. • Circumstances of guilt
- There is no need for the prosecution to prove the i. forcibly making a sexual body contact with the other
emission of semen by the accused. person in a manner that does not amount to carnal or
Gligah & Atiso: “Carnal knowledge is the penetration of a woman’s unnatural carnal knowledge without the person’s consent
vagina by a man’s penis. It does not really matter how deep or however - culpability stresses the element of force
little the penis went into the vagina. So long as there was some penetration - the absence of consent suggests a forcible touching
beyond what is known as brush work, penetration would be deemed to ii. Sexually violating the body of the other person in a
have occurred and carnal knowledge taken to have been completed”. manner not amounting to carnal or unnatural carnal
ii. That someone is the accused knowledge without the person’s consent
• Physical contact is not an essential element
iii. The victim did not consent to the act: Consent is void if: - Forcing a person under threat of harm or any other mode
- a man impersonates the husband of the victim and to perform acts that sexually violates that person’s body
induces her to consent to having carnal knowledge of her may render the accused liable although he may not have
- the accused induced the victim to consent to sexual had any physical contact with the victim
intercourse by threats

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 14

5. UNNATURAL CARNAL KNOWLEDGE - prostitution

(SECTION 104) - commission of indecent assault on that child
• Cause or encourage… means knowingly allowing the child to
Section 104: Unnatural carnal knowledge is sexual intercourse consort with, enter or continue in the employment of a
with a person in an unnatural manner or, with an animal prostitute or person of known immoral character.

• Includes: sodomy; bestiality

• Scenarios that may lead to guilt: OFFENCES INVOLVING DISHONESTY
Having unnatural carnal knowledge with:
ii. A person of 16 years or above without his or her consent Also known as acquisitive offences
- Equated to rape because of the lack of consent
- First degree felony and the accused is liable to the same 1. STEALING (Sec. 16-17; 120-127)
punishment for rape. • Stealing is a second-degree felony [section 124]
iii. A person of 16 years or more with his or her consent • A person who is convicted for stealing on more than two
- misdemeanour because of the existence of the other occasions is disqualified from election to Parliament or to a
person’s consent District Assembly for a period not exceeding five years
iv. Of an animal • A “person steals if he dishonestly appropriates a thing of
- misdemeanour which he is not the owner” [Section 125]
• Elements:
6. INCEST (Section 105) - Actus reus: Asportation i.e. taking, moving
• Incest is sexual intercourse between close family members - Mens rea: animus furandi i.e. intention to steal
- Prohibits sexual relations between members of the • To establish these elements, the prosecution must prove:
opposite sex within some degrees of consanguinity i. That the accused is not the owner of the thing allegedly stolen
• Punishment term of imprisonment Min 3 years Max 25 years - It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove who
• Age of liability is 16 years and above actually owns the thing allegedly stolen [Sec. 123]
• Only deals with carnal knowledge - The fact that the owner is not known does not make a
difference
• Prohibited Familial Sexual Relations: Republic v. Halm: a charge of stealing is not founded on a relationship
i. Male: having or permitting carnal knowledge with between the accused and an identified owner of the thing allegedly stolen,
granddaughter, daughter, sister, half-sister, mother or but rather on the relationship between the accused and the thing alleged
grandmother to have been stolen
ii. Female: having or permitting carnal knowledge with
grandson, son, brother, half-brother, father or ii. That the accused appropriated the thing alleged to have been
grandfather stolen [Section 122]
• The accused must know that the other party to sexual conduct - an appropriation of a thing means any moving; taking;
was within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity obtaining; carrying away or dealing with a thing
- Prosecution must prove same or the accused will be - The requirement is satisfied as long as it is shown that
entitled to an acquittal the object has been moved from its original setting
• Relationship between two people applies although the ▪ Merely removing the item from the place in
relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock. which the accused found it is sufficient to fix him
liability. [Anin v. The Republic]
- It must be shown that the accused committed the act
7. PROCURATION (Section 107) with the intention that some person may be deprived of
• Misdemeanour. ▪ the benefit of his ownership, or
• A person is liable where he ▪ the benefit of his right or interest in the thing, or
i. Procures another person, who is not already a prostitute, to o in its value or proceeds, or
become a prostitute or an inmate of a brothel whether in or o any part thereof
outside Ghana. - The intention may be to deprive permanently or
ii. Procures another person to have carnal or unnatural carnal temporarily
connection with any other person in or outside Ghana. - It also suffices if the appropriation is merely for a
- The person may be a person under 21 years who is not a particular use
prostitute or of known immoral character. ▪ The intent must be to use or deal with the thing
- Procurement may be by that it will probably be
▪ threats or intimidation o destroyed, or
▪ by false pretences or false representations o become useless, or
iii. applies, administers to, or causes to be taken by another o greatly injured, or
person, a drug, matter or thing, with intent to stupefy or o depreciated, or
overpower that other person so as to enable any other person o to restore it to the owner only by way of
to have a carnal or unnatural carnal connection with that sale or exchange, or for reward, or in
other person. substitution for some other thing to which
• The accused cannot be convicted of the offence of procuration he is otherwise entitled, or if it is pledged
on the evidence of only one witness. or pawned
- There must be corroboration in a material particular of - It is immaterial whether the act by which a thing is
that witness’ testimony by evidence that implicates the taken, obtained, or dealt with amounts to trespass or
accused conversion or not.
- Corroboration consists of evidence from which a
reasonable inference can be drawn which confirms in a iii. the appropriation must be dishonest
material particular the evidence to be corroborated and
connects the accused with the crime. [section 7(1) of the • Forms of dishonest appropriation [Section 120]:
Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323)] i. appropriation done with intent to defraud [Section 16]:
- Whether or not an intent to defraud will be inferred
8. SEDUCTION OR PROSTITUTION OF A CHILD depends upon the circumstances of each case
UNDER SIXTEEN (Section 108) - Intent to defraud: an intent to deprive the other person
of something of value, whether money or a chattel, and
• Misdemeanour thus causing economic loss [Section 16]
• Applies to persons who have the custody, charge or care of a
child under the 16 years. ii. appropriation without claim of right
• An offence to cause or encourage - appropriation without a claim of right must be with the
- the seduction, knowledge or belief that the appropriation is without the
- carnal knowledge consent of some person who is the owner of the thing.
- unnatural carnal knowledge

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 15

- A claim of right is a claim of right made in good faith. 2. ROBBERY (Section 149-150)
[section 15] • First degree felony
Brempong II v. The Republic: "A person has a claim of right…, if he is
honestly asserting what he believes to be a lawful claim, even though his A person who steals a thing is guilty of robbery if, in and for the purpose
claim may be unfounded in law or in fact." A claim of right negatives of stealing the thing, he uses any force or causes any harm to the person
intent to defraud. any threat of criminal assault of harm to any person, with the intent
thereby to prevent or overcome the resistance of that or of any other
iii. where the appropriation, if known by the owner of the thing, person to the stealing of the thing
would be without his consent • The prosecution must prove:
- There is no requirement that the accused should know i. All the elements of stealing
who is the owner of the thing ii. That the accused used force or caused harm or used threat of
- It suffices if the accused has reason to know or believe criminal assault or harm to any person in and for the purpose
that some other person, whether certain or uncertain, is of stealing a thing;
interested in the thing or entitled to it. [Section 120] iii. That the accused did so with the intent of preventing or
▪ i.e. a person can be guilty of stealing by overcoming the resistance of that or any other person to the
appropriating things the ownership of which is in stealing of the thing
dispute or unknown, or which have been found
by another person • The mental element: It must be shown that:
- Where the defence alleges consent on the part of one of i. The accused intended to steal something
the disputed owners, then proof of ownership becomes ii. he used force or caused harm or threatened to cause harm or
material. assault with intent to prevent or overcome the resistance of
- A co-owner of a thing can be guilty of stealing the thing that person to the stealing of the thing
irrespective of the fact the joint ownership [S 121
▪ a member, servant or officer of a partnership, or • It is not necessary that physical harm must be caused in
of any association, or corporation can be guilty relation to robbery.
of stealing a thing belonging to himself and the - Threat of criminal assault or harm with intent to put him
other members of the partnership, association, or in fear of same will suffice.
corporation ▪ Section 17- meaning of use of threats (supra)
• The force or threat need not be directed solely at the person
• Things in respect of which stealing can be committed being robbed.
[Section 123] - It suffices if the force or threat is directed at some other
- anything, whether person if the intention is to prevent or overcome the
▪ living or dead, resistance of that person to the stealing of the thing
▪ fixed to anything or not, • The threat must be directed at a person
▪ mineral or water, or gas, or electricity, or any
other nature • the charge cannot be sustained if the accused merely threatens
- The intrinsic value of the thing is immaterial to damage the property of the victim
▪ Sam v. The State: the appellant was convicted for
stealing a human skull • Punishment for robbery [Section 149]
- The property must be subject to the dominion or - Ordinarily liable to Min prison term of 10 years
possession of any person - For robbery by the use of an offensive weapon or
▪ e.g. fish in a river, lake or sea cannot be the subject- offensive missile, liable to Min prison term 15 years
matter of stealing, unless brought to effective - Offensive weapon: as any article made or adapted for
possession or dominion of another or regulated by use to cause injury to the person or damage to property
game reserve laws or intended by the person who has the weapon to use it
to cause injury or damage
Section 127- stealing by finding - Offensive missile: includes a stone, brick, or any article
• General rule: A person will not be held to have stolen a thing or thing likely to cause harm, damage or injury if thrown
if the thing appears to have been lost by another person,
• Exceptions:
- If at the time of appropriating the thing, he knows the 3. EXTORTION SIMPLICITER (Section 151)
owner of the thing or by whom it has been lost • Second-degree felony
- If the character or situation of the thing, or the marks • Involves obtaining property from a person by resort to threat
upon it, or any other circumstances is or such: - It is not a form of robbery
▪ As to indicate the owner of the thing or the - Basic difference between the two is that “threat” in the
person by whom it has been lost case of extortion does not include a threat of criminal
▪ That the person who has lost the thing appears assault or harm to the person threatened
likely to be able to recover it by reasonable • The threat may be in the nature of a blackmail or libel or
search and enquiry, if it were not removed or slander [Section 17]
concealed by any other person • A genuine belief in the existence of facts constituting
reasonable and probable cause is a sufficient defence even
Defences to a charge of stealing: though the belief may be ill-founded [CSP v. N’jie & Gaye]
i. Consent of the owner to the taking:
• Complete defence to a charge of stealing
• Consent may be actual or implied 4. EXTORTION BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
- Implied consent may be deduced from the relationship
between the parties (Sec 239; 247)
▪ E.g. in marriage to the taking of property • A public officer is guilty of extortion if, under the color of his
belonging to the other spouse office, he demands or obtains from any person, any money or
• Section 126: if it is proved, on behalf of the accused under a valuable consideration which he knows that he is not lawfully
charge of stealing, that the wife of the owner of the thing authorized to demand or obtain, or at a time at which he
consented to its appropriation by the accused, the accused will knows that he is not lawfully authorized to demand or obtain
be exculpated from liability unless it is shown that he had
notice that the wife had no authority to consent to the
appropriation 5. FRAUDULENT BREACH OF TRUST
- Constructive notice of lack of consent if it appears that (Sec 128-129)
he had committed adultery with the owner’s wife or he • The offence of fraudulent breach is a second-degree felony
designed to commit adultery with the owner’s wife • A person is guilty of fraudulent breach of trust if he
- in this case, the accused shall not be convicted of dishonestly appropriates a thing the ownership of which is
stealing by reason only of the appropriation, with the vested in him as trustee or on behalf of any other person
consent of the wife • The prosecution must prove:
ii. claim of right i. that the ownership of the thing is vested in him as trustee for
iii. found object on behalf of some other person;

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 16

ii. that the trustee appropriated the thing while it was so vested
in him; and Definition of personation [Section 134]
iii. that the appropriation was dishonest • It is a type of false pretence
• Personation involves either
• Section 122: An appropriation of a thing by a trustee means i. a false representation or false pretence by a person that he
any dealing with the thing by the trustee, with the intent of is a different person.
depriving any person for whom he is trustee of the benefit of - it does not matter whether the person he purports to be
his right or interest in the thing, or in its value or proceeds, or is dead or alive or is a fictitious person;
any part thereof ii. he gives or uses his own name with the intention that he may
• The circumstances under which the ownership of the thing be believed to be a different person of the same or similar
became vested in the accused as trustee must be proved name
• A gratuitous trustee cannot be guilty of the offence.
- A gratuitous trustee is one that being the owner of a thing in
his own right and for his own benefit, undertakes to hold or
-
apply the thing as trustee for another person
If the person constitutes himself as a gratuitous trustee, 7. FICTITIOUS TRADING (Sect. 135)
by an instrument in writing executed by him and • This is where a person orders or makes a bargain for the
specifying the nature of the trust and the person to be purchase of goods by way of sale or exchange and after
benefited he is a trustee within the meaning of Sec 129. obtaining the goods he defaults in paying the purchase money
or defaults in supplying the goods

6. FRAUD BY FALSE PRETENCE Sect 136- Distinction btn Stealing and False Pretences
(Section 131-133) • The distinction lies in the presence or otherwise of the
• Second-degree felony consent of the owner or a person with authority to part with
• A person who by means of a false pretence or by personation the ownership of the subject-matter of the charge
obtains or attempts to obtain the consent of a person to part
with or transfer the ownership of a thing by a false
representation of acting in accordance with the instructions,
orders or a request of the President or member of Cabinet is 8. FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS (Sect. 140)
guilty of defrauding by false pretences • Second-degree felony
• Section 132: a person is guilty of defrauding by false • Persons who may be guilty of the offense:
pretences if, by means of any false pretence, or by personation - clerks
he obtains the consent of another person to part - servants
- public officers
• The prosecution must prove: - officers of partnerships
i. that the accused made a false pretence or impersonated - officers of companies or corporations
another person - or any person who handles the accounts or books of an
entity
ii. that by means of the false pretence or personation, the accused • The actus reus consists of
obtained the consent of another person to part with or transfer - an act of concealing; injuring; altering, or falsifying a
the ownership of a thing book, paper or account, or
- Consent will be deemed to have been obtained by a false - omitting to make a full and true entry in an account, or
representation only where the thing is substantially - publishing a false account, statement or prospectus
worthless in comparison to what it was represented to
be, or the thing is substantially different from what it • The requisite mens rea is intention to either:
was represented to be. [Section 133] - cause a person to be defrauded [section 16]
- intent to enable a person to be defrauded [section 16]
iii. The victim must have been persuaded to accept the false - intent to commit to a crime, or
pretence of or impersonation by the accused as true and to - intent to facilitate the commission by himself,
have acted upon it to his detriment • Intent to defraud is very difficult by direct proof
- i.e. element of inducement - It may be implied from the actions of the accused
- If it is shown that the complainant had knowledge of the • Owing to the mens rea requirement, where it is proved that
falsity of the representation by the accused, but still the accused innocently falsified any book, paper or account,
acted on it to his detriment, the accused is entitled to an he may be entitled to an acquittal
acquittal.
- It does not matter that had the complainant used
ordinary care and judgment the false pretence would not 9. DISHONESTLY RECEIVING (Section 146-147)
have induced him [section 133] A person commits the criminal offence of dishonestly receiving property
which that person knows to have been obtained or appropriated by a
Definition of False pretence [section 133] criminal offence, if that person receives, buys, or assists in the disposal
• A representation of the existence of a state of facts made by a of the property otherwise than with a purpose to restore it to the
person, either with the knowledge that such representation is owner.
false or without the belief that it is true, and made with the
intent • Section 146: it is an offence for a person to receive property,
• The representation may be made in writing or verbally, or by which that person knows to have been obtained or
personation, or by any other conduct, sign, or means of any appropriated by stealing, fraudulent breach of trust, defrauding
kind. by false pretences, robbery, extortion or unlawful entry
• the false pretence must relate to the existence of a state of facts • A person who dishonestly receives property obtained or
- a representation of the existence of a state of facts appropriated by any of these offences is liable to the same
includes a representation as to the non-existence of a punishment as if that person had committed had that offence.
thing or condition of things • It is immaterial whether the criminal offence by which the
- A representation as to existence of a state of facts property was obtained or appropriated was or was not
renders the accused liable committed within the jurisdiction of the Court.
▪ Does not include a mere representation of any • Concept of recent possession: if a person is found to be in
intention or state of mind of the accused possession of any property which has been recently stolen and
- A representation as to the occurrence of a future event he is unable to give reasonably satisfactory explanation as to
does not render the accused culpable how he came by the property, he will be presumed to have
- a false representation as to future conduct or the promise dishonestly received it.
of an event in the future coupled with a false • Constructive possession: The possession or control of a
representation as to the existence of a state of facts could carrier, an agent, or a servant is deemed to be the possession
found liability or control of the person who employed the carrier, agent or
- It must also be shown that the accused had an intention servant. [section 148]
to defraud [see section 16 supra]

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 17

• The prosecution must satisfy that: - “intent defraud” implies obtaining by false
i. the accused received property which he knew to have been representations some material or financial gain from
obtained or appropriated by crime. (actus reus) someone; while intent to injure may simply mean that
- The actus reus consists of receiving, buying, or assisting some person may act to his detriment or loss [Okyere v.
in the disposal of the property otherwise than with a The Republic]
purpose of restoring it to the owner ▪ the victim of the forgery must have acted upon
- It must be established that the accused either physically the forged document to his detriment
received the goods or that the goods were in the - With respect to “intent to deceive”, the law does not
possession of a person over whom he had control require the person deceived to have been deprived of
- It is not necessary to prove that the buyer has actually anything – obtaining of his mere consent to be deprived
collected the goods is all that is necessary to complete the offence
▪ it suffices as long as he has paid for the goods,
though he is yet to collect them iv. Section 161 - Forging trade-mark: it is a misdemeanour
- Merely proving that the accused received property to
obtained or appropriated by a crime is not sufficient to • forge or counterfeit a trademark in relation to goods or the sale
establish the actus reus of goods or
▪ The accused must have knowledge that the • sell or offer for sale any goods or thing so marked or
property was obtained or appropriated by a • have in your possession, custody or control
crime. - the goods or a thing so marked, or
- Knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances of - the materials contrived or
the case. For instance, where - means prepared or contrived
▪ the accused secrets the property in very unlikely • for the forging or counterfeiting a trademark, or
places • for the marking of goods or a thing
▪ goods are offered for sale at a ridiculously low • with the intention
price. - of fraudulently passing off, or
- Knowledge may thus be imputed to the accused in - to enable another person to fraudulently pass off,
circumstances which are such as to put him on the goods as having been lawfully marked with the trade-mark or
reasonable enquiry as being a character signified by the trademark
ii. that the receipt by the accused of the property was dishonest
(mens rea) Section 163: “trade-mark” means a mark, label, ticket, or any other sign
or device lawfully appropriated by a person as a means of denoting that
(a) an article of trade, manufacture or merchandise is an article of the
- it is not enough merely to show that the accused received manufacture, workmanship, production, or merchandise of that person, or
property with the knowledge that it was obtained or (b) is an article or a peculiar or particular description made or sold by a
appropriated by a crime person,
- where the intention of the accused is otherwise than to and also means a mark, sign or device which, in pursuance of an
restore the property to the owner, liability arises enactment relating to registered designs, is to be put or placed on, or
- It does not matter that the offence by which the property attached to, an article during the existence or continuance of a copyright
was obtained or appropriated, was not committed within or any other peculiar right.
the jurisdiction of the Court
v. Section 168: Counterfeiting
• The making of an imitation of a stamp or mark, or anything
10. FORGERY (Sect 158-171) which is intended to pass or which may pass as that stamp or
• Things which can be forged: mark or thing
- judicial or official documents • It matters not that the accused does not intend that a person
- any document should be defrauded or injured by the counterfeiting or that a
- hallmarks on gold or silver plate or bullion further use should be made of the specimen or mark
- trade-mark
- stamps of any description vi. section 162: forgery & other offences in relation to
- currency notes stamps: these carry a penalty of a fine
• The gravity of the offence of forgery depends on what is forged
i. Section 158: Forgery of judicial or official document • It is a misdemeanour to possess a means of forging. [Sec 165]
• Forging a judicial or an official document with intent to - i.e. having in your possession, without lawful excuse, an
deceive another person is a second-degree felony. [] instrument or a thing specifically contrived or adapted
• An official document: a document purporting to be made, used for the purposes of forgery
or issued by a public officer for a purpose relating to that
public office [section 163] • It is an offence to possess a forged, counterfeited or falsified
document or stamp with the requisite mens rea. [Sec 166]
ii. Section 159- Forgery of other documents: - The accused must know that the document is forged, or
• It is a misdemeanour to forge any other document with the that it is counterfeited, or that it is false or not genuine
intent to Section 167: A person possesses or does an act with respect to a
- defraud or injure another person; document or stamp knowing it is not genuine, if that person possesses it,
- evade the requirements of the law; does an act with respect to it, knowing that it was not in fact made or
- commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a criminal altered at the time, or by the person, or with the authority or consent of
the person, at which or by whom or with whose authority or consent, it
offence purports or is pretended by that person to have been made or altered; and
it is immaterial whether the act of the person who made or altered it was
iii. Section 160 - Forging hall-mark on gold or silver plate or was not a criminal offence.
or bullion:
• It is a misdemeanour to forge or counterfeit a hall-mark or • Section 169: it is an offence to utter or deal with or use a
mark appointed, under the authority of a law, by a public document or stamp with the knowledge that it is not genuine
corporation or public officer to denote the weight, fineness, or that it is forged, counterfeited or falsified and with the
age, or place of manufacture of gold or silver-plate or bullion requisite mens rea
with the intention to defraud - to utter a document or stamp is to use it or deal with it
• To succeed on a charge of forgery under either section 159 or • To succeed on a charge of forgery, the prosecution must
section 160, the prosecution must prove that the thing alleged establish the following requirements:
to have been forged is a document i. that the accused made or altered the whole of the document
• The mens rea requirement of an intent to deceive under section or other thing which is the subject-matter of the charge or
158 is distinct from the mens rea requirement of an intent to any material part thereof;
defraud or injure under sections 159 and 160 ii. that the accused did so with the intent that the document or
other thing or any material part thereof so made or altered
P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary
 P a g e | 18

- be believed to be have been made or altered by any

person who did not in fact make or alter it, or 12. BEING ON PREMISES FOR UNLAWFUL
iii.
- to cause it to be believed to be what it in fact is not; and
that the accused had the intent
PURPOSE (Section 155)
- to defraud or injure any person, • This offence is a misdemeanour
- to evade the requirements of the law • Actus reus: that a person is found in or about a market, wharf,
- to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime (in the jetty, landing place, vessel, veranda, outhouse, building,
case of forgery of private documents), premises, gateway, yard, garden, or an enclosed piece of land
- to deceive any person (in the case of forgery of judicial • Mens rea: that your presence in or about such premises must
or official documents) be for an unlawful purpose
• The phrase “in or about” appears to suggest that the accused
Section 164: special provisions relating to forgery need not have actually entered the premises or building
• A person forges a document if that person makes or alters the - it seems sufficient if the accused is found or seen
document, or a material part of the document, with intent to loitering or wandering about the premises for an
cause it to be believed unlawful purpose
- that the document or the part has been so made or altered
▪ by a person who did not in fact so make or alter 13. TRESPASS (Section 157)
it; or • Trespass to land under Act 29 are of two types
▪ with the authority or consent of a person who did
not in fact give the authority or consent; i. Entering upon land unlawfully: includes
▪ it is immaterial whether the person is living or - unlawfully entering land in an insulting, annoying or
dead, or a fictitious person; threatening manner
- that the document or the part has been so made or altered - unlawfully entering land after having been forbidden to
at a time different from that at which it was in fact so do so
made or altered. - unlawfully entering and remaining on land after having
• It is forgery been required to depart from that land
- to issue or use a document, which is exhausted or
cancelled, with the intent that it may pass or have the ii. entering upon land lawfully but subsequently engaging in
effect as if it were not exhausted or cancelled conduct which renders the continued stay of the person on the
- if a person makes or alters a document in his own name land as trespass- Includes:
if he does so with the requisite mens rea of the offence - having lawfully entered on a land but acts in an
of forgery insulting, annoying or threatening manner
• It is not forgery - having lawfully entered on land and remains on same
- if a person makes or alters a document in a name which
is not his real or ordinary name unless he does so with after having been lawfully required to depart from the
the requisite men rea of the offence of forgery land
- if a person living under an assumed name, executes a
document in that assumed name, unless he does so with • It must be shown that the accused is not the owner or occupier
the requisite mens rea of the offence of forgery of the land.
• To alter a document, there must be evidence of cancellation or - Occupier: tenant or lessee or attorney or agent of an
erasure or severance or interlineations, or transposition and the owner or occupier [section 156]
addition of a material part to the document

11. UNLAWFUL ENTRY (Section 152-154) OFFENCES INVOLVING DAMAGE TO

• The offence of unlawful entry is a second-degree felony PROPERTY
[Section 152]
• The offence is committed only in relation to buildings UNLAWFUL DAMAGE (Sections 172 – 175)
• The building need not be dwelling house or a completed one • usually referred to as arson
• The area enclosed by a wall around a building is not a building • Type of offence ranges from misdemeanour to second-degree
- If the accused is arrested after scaling the wall around a felony depending on the value of the property damaged and
building, he may be charged with being on premises for whether there was danger caused to life.
unlawful purpose and not unlawful entry • The important consideration here is that the accused caused the
damage intentionally.
• To constitute entry, it must be shown that either the whole or - accidental or negligent damage will not suffice
some part of the body of the accused or an involuntary agent • The accused must have had no legal justification for damaging
entered the building the property
- In breaking a window with the intent of stealing
property in a house, the accused’s finger went within the • Section 173- “Damage”: includes not only
building, it was held to be sufficient entry [R v. Davis] - damage to the matter of a thing,
- an interruption in the use of that thing,
Section 153- unlawful entry - an interference with that thing by which
• Entry is unlawful ▪ the thing becomes permanently or temporarily
- if a person enters a building where he has no lawful right useless,
to do so or ▪ expense is rendered necessary in order to render
- where a person enters a building without the consent of the thing fit for the purposes for which it was
the person who is able to give consent for the purpose used or maintained.
for which the person enters
• It may be a defence if the accused entered the building under Section 174: Unlawful damage
a mistake or ignorance of fact in good faith A person does an act or causes an event unlawfully, where that person is
• It must be established that the accused so entered the building liable to a civil action or proceeding, or to a fine or any other punishment
with the intention of committing a crime [section 152]
- The absence of this factor inures to the benefit of the under an enactment,
accused (a) in respect of the doing of the act causing an event, or
• Where the accused, without lawful excuse, is in possession of (b) in respect of the consequences of the act or event, or
a tool or an implement adapted or intended for use in (c) in which that person would be so liable if that person caused the event
unlawfully entering a building, he will be held to have directly by a personal act, or
committed a misdemeanour [section 154]

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary

 P a g e | 19

(d) in which that person is liable to be restrained by injunction or any

other proceeding from doing that act or causing that event.

• It is immaterial whether the accused in possession or

occupation of the premises or of that thing.
• A person who has a joint or common interest with other
persons in any premises or a thing as an owner or otherwise,
or who as owner is a trustee for any other person, can commit
the offence.
• A person who is the sole beneficial owner may be liable for an
act done with intent to injure or defraud a person or to cause
harm to a person although the act is not otherwise unlawful.
• A person is not liable to punishment in respect of doing a thing
which that person in good faith, believes to be entitled to do.

SPECIAL OFFENCES
1. CAUSING LOSS, DAMAGE OR INJURY TO
PROPERTY (Section 179A, Tsatsu Tsikata)
• Who may be liable? A person who:
- by a wilful act or omission causes loss, damage or injury
property of a public body or an agency of the Republic.
- intentionally causes damage or loss whether economic
or otherwise in the course of a transaction or business
with a public body or an agency of the Republic
• Actus reus: wilful, malicious or fraudulent action or omission
by reason of which
- The Republic incurs a financial loss, or
- the security of the Republic is endangered.
• Who May be the Victim?
- public body
- an agency of the Republic.
• “public body” includes
- the Republic,
- the Government,
- a public board or corporation,
- a public institution
- a company or any other body in which the Republic or
a public corporation or other statutory body has a
proprietary interest.

2. USING PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PROFIT

(Section 179C)
Two categories
i. A public office holder who corruptly or dishonestly abuses
the office for private profit or benefit; or
ii. A non-public officer holder who acts or is found to have
acted in collaboration with a person holding a public office
for the latter to corruptly or dishonestly abuse the public
office for private profit or benefit.

Penalty (Section 179D): A person convicted of a criminal offence

specified in this Chapter is liable to a fine of not less than 250
penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years
or to both the fine and the imprisonment.

P. Vitoh: Criminal Law Summary