NAME: GROUP 6

INDEX NUMBER:

COURSE: CRIMINAL LAW 1

COURSE CODE: BLAW 103

NAME OF LECTURER: MS. NANA AMA AGYAPONG

NAME INDEX NUMBER:

Regina Emefa Quaicoe 10305688

Claire Atawa Mawusi-Grey 10313106

Acheampong Miriam. 10313134

Bannor Maame Akua Owusu. 10313212

John Okyere. 10312427

Achampong-Kyei Awurama. 10313206

Abdulai Williams Nketia. 10312263

Arko Francine. 10313150

Boateng Melitta Adjubi 10313140

 CRIMINAL LAW TUTORIAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

WEEK 2 QUESTION 1

Criminal law is a branch of law that ensures the good moral conduct and behaviour of
people in a society. Criminal law relating itself to morals is expressed in the Latin
meaning of some crimes,"mala in se" which are considered to be wrongs which are
inherently evil by nature.

Criminal law concerns itself with morals in line with the naturalist theory of law
propounded by Jeremy Bentham.

In his analogy, he purports to say that the enforceability of the law includes morals.

In the case of Proprietary Trade Articles Associatio n v Attorney General of Cana(1931),

the court held that morality and criminality are co-extensive and that criminality forms
a part of morality of the moral code approves. Based on the court's holding, this means
that criminality and morality go hand in hand to ensure peace in the society. In Ghana
per the Criminal Offences Act,1960(Act 29) , Section 46 stipulates the punishment for
murder as life imprisonment and considers it to be a crime. Factually, murder is
considered to be a moral wrong in the society for which criminal law prohibits.
According J.M. Hart, Crimes are conducts which if duly shown to have taken place will
incur a formal and solemn pronouncement of the moral condemnation of the
community. This is to say that any act considered wrong, if taken place will attract
moral sanctions in a society. Therefore according to Mr. Hart, morality is the
highlighted question of criminal law. However,according the positivist theory of law
propounded by John Austin which states contrary to criminal law concerning itself with
morals. John Austin said law is a command with sanctions attached to it and has no
necessary linkage to morality. He says the law is how it is and what considered wrong
by statute is what is wrong not moral wrongs. Moreover, in Ghana, according to article
19(11) of the 1992 constitution, a crime is one which is defined in our law with penal
consequences attached to it. That is to say that crimes are wrongs which have to be
defined with punishments attached to them for its commission. In the case of Glah &
Anor v The Republic, where the plaintiff was charged for breaching the peace of the
community because of his affair with his mother in law and sister in law, the court held
that it was a question of morality and not the law therefore, he was acquitted and
discharged.

To conclude, morality and criminality do have a linkage to criminal law as purported

by the naturalists and on the contrary view as expounded by the positivists.

WEEK 2 QUESTION 6

According to Lord Devlin, society has a right to punish conduct of which its members
strongly disapprove, on the ground that the state has a role to play as a moral tutor and
the criminal law is its proper tutorial technique. Discuss the arguments he put forward
to support this position.

The argument put forward by Lord Devlin regarding the state's role as a moral tutor
and the use of criminal law as a tutorial technique is a complex and debated topic in
legal philosophy.

Lord Devlin's position, as outlined in his work "The Enforcement of Morals," is that
society has a right to use the criminal law to enforce moral standards and punish
conduct that its members strongly disapprove of. He argued that the state has a duty to
act as a moral tutor, shaping and preserving the shared moral fabric of society.

Devlin's key arguments are:

Moral Consensus and Social Cohesion: Devlin believed that society has a right to
protect its own existence, which includes preserving the moral fabric that holds the
society together. He argued that there is a shared morality within a society, and when
that morality is threatened, it can lead to the disintegration of the social order.

Challenging the Harm Principle: Devlin challenged John Stuart Mill's "harm
principle," which states that the only legitimate reason for the state to restrict individual
liberty is to prevent harm to others. Devlin argued that the state has a broader role in
preserving the moral consensus, even if the conduct in question does not directly harm
others.

The State as a Moral Tutor: Devlin believed that the state has a responsibility to act as
a moral tutor for its citizens. He argued that the criminal law is a legitimate tool for the
state to use in shaping and reinforcing the moral norms of society

The Enforcement of Morality:Devlin contended that the enforcement of morality

through the criminal law is necessary to maintain social cohesion and prevent the
disintegration of society. He believed that the state has a duty to intervene when the
moral consensus is threatened, even if the conduct in question does not directly harm
others

Limits of Toleration: Devlin argued that there are limits to the level of toleration
that a society can extend to conduct that violates its moral norms. He believed that the
state has a right to punish such conduct in order to preserve the moral fabric of society.

Devlin's views have been influential, but they have also faced significant criticism
from legal philosophers such as H.L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin. Hart argued that, the
state should not use the criminal law to enforce private morality. Hart's view, as
expressed in his book "Law, Liberty, and Morality," is that the criminal law should be
limited to preventing harm and protecting individual rights, and that the state should
not interfere with the private moral choices of individuals. Dworkin, in "Taking Rights
Seriously," contended that the state's role should be to protect individual rights, not to
enforce a particular moral vision.

The debate between Devlin and his critics has been reflected in various court cases.
In the landmark case of R v. Dudgeon (1981), the Court agreed with the Commission
that Northern Ireland's criminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults
was a violation of article 8 of the European convention on human rights which says:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of
this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
society for the protection of health or morals". Judgment was given in Dudgeon's favour
, rejecting Devlin's view that the state could use the criminal law to enforce moral
standards.

Similarly, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), The Court, in a landmark decision in 2003,

overturned its previous ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and held that the Texas
law criminalizing same-sex intimate conduct violated the constitutional rights of
privacy and liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court emphasized
that individuals have a fundamental right to engage in private, consensual sexual
conduct without government interference, regardless of their sexual orientation.By
recognizing intimate consensual sexual conduct as a protected liberty interest under
substantive due process, the Court affirmed that individuals have a right to make
personal decisions about their intimate relationships and sexual activities free from
unwarranted government intrusion.

In the context of Ghana, the Constitution of Ghana recognizes the importance of

upholding moral values and social cohesion. Article 26 of the Constitution states that , “
1. Every person is entitled to enjoy, practise, profess, maintain and promote any culture,
language, tradition or religion subject to the provisions of this Constitution. 2. All
customary practices which dehumanise or are injurious to the physical and mental
wellbeing of a person are prohibited. This suggests that the state has a role to play in
promoting and preserving the moral and cultural values of the Ghanaian society.

However, the Constitution also emphasizes the protection of individual rights and
freedoms, as outlined in chapter 5 of the 1992 constitution. This suggests that the state's
role in enforcing morality

through the criminal law should be balanced against the need to respect individual
autonomy and privacy.

In conclusion, Lord Devlin's argument regarding the state's role as a moral tutor
and the use of criminal law as a tutorial technique is a complex and controversial issue
in jurisprudence. While the Constitution of Ghana recognizes the importance of
upholding moral values and social cohesion, it also emphasizes the protection of
individual rights and freedoms. The balance between these competing interests is an
ongoing debate that requires careful consideration of the relevant authorities, books,
and court cases.

WEEK 5 QUESTION

Area of law

From the facts stated above, the area of law is Principle of Legality.
Issues

- Whether or not Kofi Tawala is liable to have committed a crime before the assent of the
Bill to law

- Whether or not Kofi Tawala can be charged for committing an offence after the
inception of the law

Rules

The Principle of Legality concerns itself with the fact that that the power of the law to
punish people is not limitless. This principle is coined in the Latin maxim," nullum
crimen nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali which means no crime can be committed
unless it is defined and prohibited by law with penal consequences.

The Latin maxim is sub-divided into two, that is nullum crimen sine praevia lege and
nulla poena sine praevia lege. The former means that no one can be charged for a
criminal offence if before the commission of the offence there was no law prohibiting
that act. Article 19(5) of the 1992 constitution outlines this aspect of the principle of
legality. It states that no one can be punished for a criminal offence if before the act was
committed, there was no law prohibiting the act. In the case of Hassan v The State
where the accused Mr. Hassan was charged for possession of Indian hemp, the court
held that he had not committed an offence since there was no law prohibiting the
possession of Indian hemp. Also the case of Tsatsu Tsiksta v The Republic, where the
accused Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata was charged for wilfully causing financial loss to the state,
the court held that that purported offence had no law prohibiting it at the time he
committed that act. The latter which is nulla poena sine praevia lege highlights the fact
that no act is a crime unless it's defined by a written law with sanctions attached.
Therefore in Article 19(11) of the constitution, it states that no person can be charged
with a criminal offence if that offence is not prescribed in written law with penal
consequences attached. Also John Austin speaks to this maxim in the sense that for an
act to be wrong, it must be stated with sanctions stipulated for them. For instance, for
the act of stealing to be considered wrong, it must be clearly stated and expressly
defined with a sanctioned attached. Ex gratia; in Ghana, the sanction for murder is life
imprisonment. In the case of Glah & Anor v The Republic where the accused, Mr. Glah
was charged for a breach of peace due to his act of having an affair with his mother in
law and sister in law, the court held that he had not committed a crime since that act of
adultery was not prohibited by written law with sanctions but rather a moral wrong.

Application

With respect to issue 1, the case of Kofi Tawala co-incides with the first sub-division,
nullum crimen praevia sine lege of the principle of legality. Kofi Tawala cannot be liable
for the sale of cigarettes since there us no law at the time of his arrest prohibiting that
act as stated per article 19(5) of the constitution which states that no one can be charged
for an offence if before its commission there was no law prohibiting it.

With respect to issue 2, Kofi Tawala can still not be liable to have committed an offence
because per the provision of article 19(5) of the constitution, he cannot be punished for
an offence which before committed there was no law even though after the commission
there us a law passed prohibiting it.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis above, Kofi Tawala is not liable to have committed an offence
because the act I'd the sake of cigarettes at the time he engaged in that was not a crime
and therefore he can't be held liable.

Advice

From the facts above, I advise that Kofu Tawala goes ahead to appeal his case because
he will win as well as be discharged and acquitted.

WEEK 4 QUESTION 1

Punishment is the infliction of suffering on the offender deliberately for an act

committed by an authority. There are two main theories of punishment namely; The
utalitarian and retributive theory of punishment.
The retributive theory of punishment focuses on punishment as a means of revenge for
what the offender had done.

There are two forms under this retributive theory that is classical and proportional
theory as propounded by Jeremy Bentham.

The classical theory bases its main derivative from the mosaic law which states
expressly, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That is, what you do, I do same to
you. The measure you meted to me is the measure I mete to you as punishment. For
instance, if you kill someone, you will also be killed. The proportionality theory focuses
on the punishment being equal to the act done. The punishment must suite the act
committed.

The retributive theory of punishment in line with the classical version bases solely on
emotions in the sense that it's a form punishment aimed at seeking revenge for an act
done. It is based on the law of retaliation as stated by Jeremy Bentham that is "lex
talionis"- an offender should be paid back in his own coin(his own offence). Feelings of
anger and pain involved in meteing out punishment.

However, the proportionality theory suggests otherwise. It's not based on emotions but
the act done must match the punishment alloted to it. That is to say, whether it was the
offence of murder as per section 46 of the Criminal Offences Act(Act 29),the sanction for
it is life imprisonment and not directly the offence done as the punishment. Moreover,in
the case of Melfa v The Republic where the appellant was convicted and sentenced for
8years initially of murder for stabbing an angry man who threatened to kill him with a
broken glass, the court held that, based on the facts of the case, his offence of killing the
man did not match with the charge and punishment meted. Hence, the court quashed
the conviction of murder to that of manslaughter and reduced his sentence to 4years. In
case of Apaloo v The Republic,it was held that the general principle is that a sentence of
imprisonment, even though intended specifically as a general deterrence, must not be
excessive in relation to the facts of the offence. Also in the case of Kwadu v The
Republic where the appellant was convicted for the charge of stealing and attempting to
steal and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with hard labour, the appellate court held
that the imposition of punishment must be harsh enough to be a deterrent and short
enough to satisfy the reformative element in criminal justice.

To conclude, the classical form of the retributive theory is based on emotions but that of
the proportionality theory goes contrawise..
WEEK 8 QUESTION 2

Area of law - Criminal liability; Causation

Issues - Whether or not Ama is liable for Kwame's death.

Whether or not Dr. Arlo is liable for Kwame's death.

Rule

Causation is defined in the case of Impress v Ress 1971 as to bring by one's own act or
endeavour. In the casual sense, the person's act should be linked to the actus reus.

Section 64, Criminal Offences Act 1960 states;

a) " death shall not be caused by harm, if by reason of the harm, death has happened
sooner, by however short a time, then it would probably have happened but for the
harm.

b) It is immaterial that the harm will not have caused the person's death, but for his
infancy, old age, intoxication, state of mind, and body at the time when the harm was
caused.

This section implies that basing a death on an existing medical condition is immaterial
to the cause of events. Also, generally, a medical practitioner is not liable for a patient's
death unless the act of the doctor is grossly negligent in causing the patient's death.

c) Death shall be held to have been caused by harm if the death is caused by the medical
or surgical treatment of the harm, unless such treatment is grossly negligent or unless
the death could not have been foreseen as a likely consequence of the treatment.

Application

In issue 1, using the case of R v Smith 1959, the defendant was a soldier who was
stabbed by his comrade. He was dropped twice on the way to the hospital. Due to bad
medical treatment, he died. The court ruled that the stab wound was the operating and
substantial cause, the death was said to be as a result of the harm. In this case, the harm
caused by Ama was the primary cause of his death due to Ama pushing him, leading to
his injuries, which were severe and making him unconscious. The rule is that pre-
existing condition of the victim does not break the chain of causation. The harm done by
Ama accelerated his death due to his pre-existing condition.

In the second issue, with the

case of Twum v The Republic 1967, a policeman was hit by the appellant and died when
admitted to the hospital. The court ruled that it was not insufficient to prove the act of
the appellant caused the death, the evidence must show that the act of the appellant did
cause the death or accelerated the death of the deceased. Due to the harm caused by
Ama, Kwame suffered injuries, which could possibly cause his death and accelerate his
bad health due to his thin skull. The doctor could not have determined Kwame's
allergies to the medication at that instant. Though the act proximate his death, it cannot
be the cause. The attempt was to lessen the victim's pain and improve the condition. As
such, Dr. Arlo cannot be liable for his death since his act was not out of gross
negligence.

Conclusion

Ama is liable for Kwame's death since her act was the primary cause of the death. The
doctor's act cannot be termed as gross negligence since his act was to lessen the pain of
Kwame's injuries, so he's not liable. Yaw and Kofi are not liable to Kwame's death since
they aren't linked to the death.
WEEK 6 QUESTION 1

Area of law

From the set of facts above, the area of law is criminal liability specifically indirect
intent.

Issues

From the set of facts listed, the issues noted are;

- Whether or not Koo Nimo had the intention to kill his son?
-Whether or not Koo Nimo is liable to have committed an offence?

Rules

Indirect intent is when the commission of an offence with the intention for a desired
result but does not end up producing that result- a person is still liable for the
consequence of his actions.

Moreover, Section 11(2) of the Criminal Offences Act, Act 29 defines indirect intent and
stipulates that the offender us liable for the even that occurred tho he did not intend for
it to happen.

In the case of R v QUAYE (JACK TOLLER) & ORS (1954) 14 WACA 488 where the
accused, in furtherance of his aim of stealing from a house, administered chloroform to
the deceased who died as a result of an overdose. He court held that the degree of
criminal responsibility depends upon the existence or otherwise of a bona fide
ignorance of the connection existing between a mere mechanical act and its
consequences. The knowledge and consciousness on the part of the accused that death
is a likely result of his act, i. e. whether or not he willfully incurred the risk of causing
the death of another person, is therefore an essential element.

Also in the case of R v IDIONG & ANOR (1950) 13WACA30 where the 1st appellant
with the intention of committing abortion instructed the 2nd appellant to administer a
herbal preparation to a woman. The 2nd appellant, believing he was giving medicine to
a woman undergoing a natural miscarriage, administered the medicine. The woman
died, and they were convicted of murder. The court held that although the 1st appellant
intended all along to cause abortion, the evidence failed to show that he knew that the
act of the 2nd appellant was likely to endanger life. In the absence of an intention to
cause an abortion, the 2nd Appellant's conviction was quashed. The 1st appellant's
conviction for murder was however, only reduced to manslaughter because he had
foresight of the probable consequences of his act. There was thus a sufficient intention
to cause harm.

Application

With respect to issue 1, Koo Nimo did not intend to kill his son although he had uttered
that, "I will kill you before you kill me with your evil ways". Per section 11(2) which
states that whether Koo Nimo intended to kill the animal but instead killed his son still
makes him liable for an offence because he's still liable for the unintended consequence
of killing his son.

In correlation to the case of R v Quaye, where the appellant had intention to steal but
administered chloroform killing the deceased,Koo Nimo is liable for the killing of his
son although he intended to kill the animal.

With respect to issue 2, Koo Nimo is liable to have committed an offence as stated per
section 11(2) saying that the person is still liable for the even that caused although that
was not his intention.

Conclusion

To conclude, from the facts above, Koo Nimo is liable for the offence of killing his son
although he didn't intend to commit that offence initially.

Advise

Based on the analysis above, as a legal consult, I advise that Koo Nimo appeals. His
previous conviction of murder will be quashed and he will be convicted for
manslaughter and lower sentence than the initial.

WEEK 2 QUESTION 3

Punishment can be defined as any pain intentionally inflicted on a person for an act or
omission. The courts have the power to administer justice and this includes sanctioning
offenders of the law. However before offenders can be sanctioned by the law, there
must be a statute in force or a law in place which spells out actions, and inactions which
constitute crimes. In Ghana ,the constitution in article 19(11),spells out that no one shall
be punished for an offence unless its prescribed and its punishment written down in a
written law. The Criminal offences act (29) and criminal procedure act(30) are statutes
which spell out all offences under Ghanaian law and their procedure of punishment
respectively. In cases, where an individual is punished for an action or inaction that is
not written down and its punishment isn't prescribed, one can bring an action to the
courts for violation of his/her rights?. Also, one cannot not be punished of a crime based
on a retroactive legislation .(article 19(5)).Therefore unless an offence has been
codified ,one cannot be punished for it. This includes customary offences as the laws of
Ghana recognises customary laws as a source of law (article 11(e)) as well as customary
offences, these offences must be codified. A case to uphold this principle is that of
Debrah v The Republic where the appellant (Debrah),was convicted for disrespecting
the chief of kadjebi by conduct. The appellant was seen collecting stones by one Kodwo
Sekyere in front of the chiefs palace who later reported the incident to the chief and he
held an arbitration meeting to afford the appellant the opportunity to defend himself.
The appellant did and the chief went ahead to fine him anyway.The appellant made his
intention of not paying clear directly to the chief and not through the linguist .He also
walked out of which was considered disrespect to the chief and therefore a violation of
section 53a of the Chieftaincy Act 370. The linguist reported the issue and the appellant
was arrested . The issues raised at the court was whether or not Debrahs actions
constituted an insult to the chief and also whether or not Debrah could be punished for
his actions. The court held that Debrahs actions did not constitute an insult against the
chief but rather their custom and since the act 370 sought to protect the interests of
chiefs and not private individuals, he could not be punished for his actions. Also, the
court stated that if the fine imposed on the appellant was an arbitration award, its
enforcement did not lie with the police but rather a substantive civil action .However it
was a punishment for finding him guilty of a customary offence ,the section 8 stated "no
person shall be liable to punishment by the common law for an act"

also in Ababio v the republic, the appellant was destooled for not attending meetings of
the Kumasi traditional council of which he argued his stool was not a part of. He was
also punished under the N.L.C.D.112 for the same act and he appealed on the grounds
that he had been tried twice for the same offence .The issue raised was whether or not a
person could be punished twice under an offence or act The court held that the
application of the instant provision is limited to the code and that it didn't apply to the
provisions of other enactments,therefore one could be punished twice for the same act
and not offence

In conclusion, for customary offences to be punishable, they must be defined down and
the punishment for violating them must be prescribed in a written law.

WEEK 4 QUESTION 3

the principle of legality is a very powerful barrier that prevents abuse in the
administration of justice. The principle is encapsulated in the latin maxim nullum
crimen,nullum poena sine preavia lege poenali This is divided into two main classes
which are I).nullum crimen sine preavia lege which translates to mean no one should be
punished based on an action whuch at the time committed didn't constitute an offence
and this can be found in article 19(5), It further goes on to say no one shall be punished
by the common law for an act therefore reinforcing abolition of crimes under section 8.
In the case of tsatsu tsikata v the republic ,tsatsu who was the manager of the G.N.P.C
which oversaw the petroleum companies in the country entered into an agreement with
valley farms a first grade producer of cocoa to act as a guarantor to a loan which laid
out in its terms that if valley farms defaulted in their payment ,G.N.P.C. will be held
liable. Valley farms defaulted and tsatsu was held liable .The signing of the loan
agreement took place in 1991 and a law concerning any individual who caused financial
loss to the state was passed in 1993.Tsikata was charged with 3 counts of willfully
causing financial loss to the state and one count of misusing public funds of which he
was held guilty on all counts and convicted. He appealed and it was dismissed and he
later appealed to the supreme court where he claimed the term willfully causing
financial loss was not defined leaving it vague. He also said he wasn't liable to the law
passed in 1993 since at the time of the signing there was no law and that if it applied to
him, the law will be seen to be taking retrospective effect the appeal was allowed since
there was no law that defined what wilfully causing financial loss to the state was. also
since the law was passed later on ,it could not have applied to him upholding article
19(5). Also in hassan v the state,the appellant was arrested ,trialed and convicted of
having in possession of indian hemp when at the time there was no law prohibiting the
possession of indian hemp.Later a law was passed where a mere possession was an
offence .He appealed on the grounds that he was not guilty since the law was taking a
retroactive effect and in here as well the prrincile of legality was upheld. however there
are some exceptions which are in the case of shaw v dpp, where the offence conspiracy
to corrupt public morals hadn't been written down but the court said they had the
power to create offences to adapt with changing moral standards of the society. This
principle was modified in knuller v dpp, where the court held it wasn't their jurisdiction
to create offences. …. the next maxim which is nulla poena sine praevia lege is divided
into 2 main parts ie. the offence must be written ,ii).its punishment must be prescribed
in a written law. and it can be seen in article 19(11).Tsikatas case wilfully causing
financial loss hadn't been defined and therefore he couldn't be held guilty for
that,upholding art 19(11). also in debrah v the republic ,the action that constituted insult
to the chief wasn't defined and hence he couldn't be held guilty for that.in Glah and
another v the state evenhough glahs actions was against their custom and morals ,since
it wasn't written down and its punishmnet prescribed by a statute in force,Glah was not
seen to have committed a crime. the above points make it clear that the principle of
legality make it difficult for peoples rights to be abused in the administration of justice
as the principle has drawn a clear line to what the law is and what constitutes an
offence.
WEEK 6 QUESTION 3

With the aid of legal authorities discuss the four types of mens rea a d how they operate

in criminal liability

The Latin term "mens rea"is used to describe the state of mind element of a crime.Every
crime has a physical aspect called the acteus reus and the mental aspect ,the mens
rea.Both are necessary for a conviction to be sound.Mens rea is an important concept in
assessing criminal liability.In early common law the mens rea was not considered as
being important and as a result of this a lot of strict liability offences were created.
However by the early 20th century the opinion of the courts had changed, and mens rea
was then conducted a fundamental part of criminal liability.

There are four types of mens rea that is intent,recklessness,knowledge and negligence.

Intent in Ghanaian law refers to a deliberate act to commit a crime.It involves a person's
conscious decision to engage in an unlawful act.Intent is governed in Section (11)of Act
29

Section 11(1)"Where a person does an act for the purpose of causing or contributing to
cause an event that person intends to cause an event although in fact or in belief of that
person or both in fact and also in that belief, the act is unlikely to cause or contribute to
cause an event.This is where a person engages in an act to achieve a specific result and
the desired result ensues,he will be held to have intended that result even if he did not
believe that the desired result was probable.This is the

simplest form of intent and it is referred to as direct intent.

Section11(2) A person who does not act voluntarily, believing that it will probably cause
or contribute to cause an event intends to cause that event although that person does
not do the act for the purpose of causing or contributing to cause the event. Thus if a
person engages in conduct for a particular purpose and the means chosen causes other
effects,consequences of his act was forseeable at thetime the act was committed. This
type of intent is referred to as indirect.

Recklessness involves acting with conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable
risk.It signifies a state where an individual knowingly takes a chance that their actions
could lead to harmful consequences, despite being aware of the potential risks
involved.In the case of REPUBLIC V ADEKURA(1984-1986) 2GLR 345, CA) where the
court of appeal held that to shoot rounds of bullets at a moving vehicle at that time of
the day when visibility was so poor and limited was on inherently dangerous act which
exposed the occupants of the vehicle to a serious risk of death ,although the desire was
to demobilize the vehicle by deflating the tyre

Negligence involves failing to recognize a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a

reasonable person would have noticed .It signifies a state where an individual
overlooks a risk that a prudent person would have been aware of leading to harmful
consequences. Section 12 provides that "A person causes an act negligently where,
without intending to cause the event that person causes it by a voluntary act, done
without the skill and care that are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Knowledge refers to being aware of the consequences of one's actions .It signifies
having a clear understanding of the potential outcomes of one's behaviour. Knowledge
has not been specifically defined in the Criminal Offences Act. Section 25 provides an
example. It states"A person who knowingly having reason to believe that any person
has committed or has been convicted of a criminal offence conceals or harbours that
person with the purpose of enabling that person to avoid lawful arrest or execution of a
sentence commits a misdemeanor. Where a law provides that to constitute a crime the
act should have been done "knowingly " then there is no liability where the accused
proves that he did not know of the circumstances that makes the act a crime.

In conclusion, the four types of mens rea that is intent ,recklessness, knowledge,
negligence help determine the level of culpability and responsibility of individuals in
criminal cases.
WEEK 9 QUESTION 3

Area of law - Inchoate offences, specifically abetment elements of criminal liability

Issues

Whether or not Harry is criminally liable for the role he played in Ethel's death

Whether or not Joe can be criminally held liable for Ethel's death
Rule

Actus non faeit reum nisit mensit rea. This means that for a person to be liable for an
offence, the actus reus and mens rea must meet.

Inchoate offences is an English word meaning an incomplete act or an action that is not
complete. In the laws of Ghana, a person will not be punished as he committed a
substantive offence.

Section 11(1) of Act 29 states that "..where a person does an act for the purpose of
causing or contributing to cause an event, that person intends to cause that event,
within the meaning of this Act, although in fact, or in the belied of that person or both
in fact and also in that belief, the act is unlikely to cause or contribute to cause the event.

Section 20(1) states that " A person who directly or indirectly instigates, commands,
procures, solicits or in any other manner purposely aids, facilitates, encourages or
promotes, whether by a personal act or presence of otherwise, and a person who does
not act for the purpose of aiding, facilitating, encouraging or promoting the commission
of a criminal offence by any other person whether known or unknown, certain or
uncertain, commits the criminal offence of abetting that criminal offence, and of abetting
the other person in respect of that criminal offence.

Application

Using Section 20 in issue 1, Harry commits the criminal offence of abetting murder. He
instigated the act of killing Ethel, and Joe committed the act. Even though Harry didn't
physically kill her, he brought about the idea of the murder with an intention or goal,
making him criminally liable.

In issue 2, with Section 20, Joe can be criminally liable because he agreed to the idea of
the murder. The physical element was present, the murder and the mental element
were also present, and he had the will to kill her.

Conclusion
Harry and Joe are both criminally held liable because Harry committed the offence of
abetting murder, making it a crime. Joe also committed that act of murder, making them
criminally liable.
WEEK 10 QUESTION 2

Area of law - General exemptions, specifically Intoxication

Issues

Whether or not Kofi can be held criminally liable for Kwame's death by reason of
drinking akpeteshie

Rule

Actus non faeit reum, nisit mensit rea. This means that for a person to be held liable for
an offence, the physical and mental element must coincide.

Defences are arguments or set of evidence presented by the accused to negate their legal
responsibility for a crime.

Intoxication under Section 28(5) includes a state produced by being under the influence
of narcotics or drugs.

Generally, Intoxication is not a defense to criminal liability in Ghana. It can be

voluntary or involuntary. In this case, it is involuntary intoxication where in Section 28
of Act 29, it's a state when a person takes alcohol or drugs by themselves or willingly
meaning the person knows the probable consequences of the act.

Application

In this case, intoxication is generally not a defense for criminal liability, except the state
of intoxication was not caused voluntarily, and it was against the person's consent or
without his knowledge. It is only then it can be a defense for criminal liability, Section
28(A). However, in this case, Kofi was intoxicated voluntarily, meaning he drank
akpeteshie willingly, probably knowing there might be consequences for any action he
took during that state. He stabbed Kwame because he was insulted by him. This led to
Kwame's death. In R v Hardie, Mr. Hardie consumed Valium to calm himself because
he intended to damage a woman's property by being reckless. He returned intoxicated
and set fire to the wardrobe in his bedroom. He appealed the conviction. It was held
that Hardie's state of mind had to be considered. When he burned the wardrobe could
they requirements of an intention to destroy and / or recklessness could be established.
He was under the influence of Valium. It was held that the self administeration of drugs
does not necessarily assume that it could not negatively affect the mens rea in the same
way alcohol or illegal drugs could. The conviction was quashed. In this case, Kofi was
drunk voluntarily which affected his mens rea, making him have the intention or will to
stab Kwame when he insulted him, making the physical and mental elements present.
This would make him criminally liable to the consequences, Kwame's death.

Conclusion

Kofi would be criminally liable to Kwame's death. Due to his voluntary intoxicated
state, knowing the consequences of that drunken state, he stabbed Kwame because he
insulted him. The physical and mental elements would make him liable for that offence.
As a result, the defence of intoxication will not avail Kofi for the act he committed.

How does the criminal law distinguish between intention and recklessness?

The criminal law in Ghana makes a fundamental distinction between the mental states
of intention and recklessness when determining the culpability and appropriate
punishment for criminal offenses. This distinction is crucial in ensuring a fair and just
criminal justice system, as it reflects the varying degrees of blameworthiness and moral
culpability associated with different types of criminal conduct.

At the heart of this distinction lies the concept of mens rea, which refers to the mental
state or intention of the accused at the time of the offense. The criminal law recognizes
that not all criminal acts are committed with the same level of culpability, and it is
essential to differentiate between those

committed with a specific purpose or intent, and those committed with a mere
disregard for the risk of harm.

Intention, on the one hand, represents the highest level of culpability, where the
accused has a conscious desire or purpose to bring about the criminal result. This is the
case in crimes such as murder, robbery, and arson, where the perpetrator has a clear
and deliberate intention to cause harm.

Recklessness, on the other hand, involves a lower level of culpability, where the
accused is aware of the risk of their actions but chooses to disregard it, leading to the
criminal outcome. Examples of reckless crimes include manslaughter, reckless driving,
and reckless endangerment.

The distinction between intention and recklessness is not merely academic; it has
significant practical implications in the Ghanaian criminal justice system.

The level of culpability, as determined by the accused's mental state, directly influences
the severity of the punishment and the overall fairness of the proceedings. This
distinction is firmly grounded in the Criminal Offences Act, judicial precedents, and the
principles enshrined in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

The Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29):

• Section 11 of the Act defines intention as acting for the purpose of causing
or contributing to cause an event, that person intends to cause that event, within the
meaning of this Act, although in fact, or in the belief of that person or both in fact and
also in that belief, the act is unlikely to cause or to contribute to cause the event

• A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if:

• (a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or

will exist; and.

• (b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is

unjustifiable to take the risk.

In the case of Hyamm Vs DPP , Lord Hailsham also held that intention could also exist
where the defendant ‘knew there was a serious risk that death or serious bodily harm
will ensure from his acts and he commits those acts deliberately and without lawful
excuse with the intention to expose a potential victim to that risk as the result of those
acts.

In the case of Elliot V C, the court held that If the risk is one which would have been
obvious to a reasonably prudent person, once it has also been proved that the particular
defendant gave no thought to the possibility of there being such a risk, it is not a
defence that because of limited intelligence or exhaustion she would not have
appreciated the risk even if she had thought about it.
 The book "Criminal Law in Ghana" by Nana Oye Lithur (2015) discusses the
distinction between intention and recklessness, highlighting that intention is a higher
level of culpability as it involves a specific purpose to cause harm, while recklessness is
a lower level of culpability as it involves a conscious disregard of risk. " Principles of
Criminal Law in Ghana" by Kwasi Prempeh (2018) also examines the differences
between intention and recklessness, and their implications in the criminal justice
system.

The distinction between intention and recklessness is crucial in the Ghanaian

criminal justice system, as it determines the appropriate level of culpability and the
corresponding punishment for the accused. The authorities, including the Criminal
Offences Act, judicial precedents, textbooks, and the Constitution, all emphasize the
importance of this distinction in ensuring a fair and just criminal justice system.

WEEK 6 QUESTION 4

Strict liability is when someone can be found quilty of a crime even if they did not have
the mens rea or intent to commit the crime.

There are some situations where it is justifiable to impose strict liability,Eg. when it
comes to crimes that involve a high degree of danger such as reckless driving or selling
dangerous products. It is also justifiable to impose strict criminal liability in cases where
the crime is considered to be very serious such as, murder or rape.

To begin with,Public Safety: For some offenses that pose a significant risk to
public safety, such as environmental pollution or certain food safety violations, strict
liability can help ensure that individuals and organizations take the necessary
precautions to prevent harm.

Regulatory Offenses:In the realm of regulatory offenses, such as traffic violations

or certain business-related infractions, strict liability can help maintain order and
enforce compliance with laws and regulations.Strict liability offenses can act as a
deterrent to prevent individuals from engaging in certain activities or behaviors that
may result in harm to others or society as a whole. The fear of being held strictly liable
for an offense can promote caution and adherence to laws.
 In the case of R v Prince 1987. The defendant was charged under the offense of
taking a young unmarried girl out of the possession and against the will of their father.
The court held that ignorance of the girls age was not a defense and that strict liability
applied to the offense.

R v Prince case lies in its demonstration of the principle of strict liability in criminal law.
The ruling established that certain offenses,particularly those related to protecting
vulnerable individuals like young girls may be subject to strict liability, meaning that
intent or knowledge is not required to establish guilt.

In the case of R v Caldwell. The defendant, Caldwell, had intentionally set fire to a
hotel but mistakenly believed that the hotel was empty at the time . The key issue in this
case was whether recklessness in Caldwell’s action was sufficient to establish criminal
liability.

The court held that Caldwell’s recklessness towards whether the hotel was empty was
enough to establish criminal liability. Because his actions was foreseeable.

This test broadened the scope of the recklessness in criminal cases by focusing
on the objective disregard for the risk rather than the subjective knowledge of the risk.

However, it is crucial to balance the need for strict liability with the principles of
justice and fairness. Critics argue that strict liability can lead to unjust outcomes,
particularly when individuals are held accountable for actions they did not intend to
commit. Therefore, the imposition of strict liability should be carefully considered and
limited to cases where the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks.

WEEK 11 QUESTION 3

Area Of law- Per the facts of the case, the area of law is inchoate offences precisely,
attempt and criminal liability.

ISSUES- Whether or not MELISSA is criminally liable for buying some hunting traps to
kill the dog.

-Whether or not MATHEW is criminally liable for setting the trap to kill the dog.
-Whether or not Melissa is criminally liable for picking the trap and later disposing it
out of regret.

-Whether or not MELISSA AND MATHEW are criminally liable for attempting to kill
the dog.

RULES

- Inchoate Offences are incomplete criminal offences of a substantive offence or even if

complete,did not achieve the intended purpose. Inchoate offences under the Criminal
Offences Act,1960(Act 29)are attempt, preparation,abetment and conspiracy. A person
guilty of any inchoate offence is directly or indirectly punished as if he or she has in
fact, committed the substantive offence of which he has been charged with its inchoate
offence. This general rule does not apply to the offence of murder. A person who is
guilty of attempting, preparing for ,conspiring to commit,abetting inter alia. the offence
of murder is punishable by life imprisonment and not death.

- Actus Reus also known as The Act, is defined by Prof.Kenny as “ a deed or the
physical result of a human conduct.” Actus reus are the results of human conduct that
the law seeks to prevent. Accordingly, the Actus Reus is the wrongful deed that
comprises the physical components of a crime and that generally must be coupled with
Mens Rea to establish criminal liability.

- Mens Rea is when a person can only be held criminally liable if his act is guilty
together with his mind. It comes in three forms namely; intention, recklessness and
negligence.

- Criminal Attempt is when a person who with the intent to commit a criminal offence
does more than a mere preparation towards the commission of the intended criminal
act, is found guilty.

- Section 18 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 ( Act 29)throws more light on the attempt
to commit a criminal offence.

- Duah V. The State and R v. Shivpuri

APPLICATION
- Relating the act of Melissa to the definition of inchoate Offences, the act still
constituted a criminal offence. Hence is punitive by law. Melissa can be held liable for
the act of purchasing hunting traps with the intent to harm the dog which can be seen
as an attempt to commit a criminal offence. Because according to SECTION 19 of the
Criminal Offences Act, a person who has in possession any material for the purpose of
committing a criminal offence while life is likely to be endangered is liable to
punishment, in like manner as if that person has attempted to commit that criminal
offence. Also, according to Section 18 of the Criminal Offences Act, a person who
attempts to commit a criminal offence, whether successful or not is liable to be
convicted and punished as if the criminal offence was completed.

- In the case of State v. Smith(2018), the defendant was charged with possession of
illegal traps used for hunting wildlife. The court upheld the conviction based on
evidence that the defendant knowingly possessed and used prohibited trapping
devices, which violated state wildlife regulations.

- The case of People v. Johnson (2015) involved a defendant charged with possession of
illegal animal traps. The court determined that the defendant's possession and use of
prohibited traps constituted a violation of state wildlife protection laws.

- Like Melissa, Mathew’s actions can also be viewed as an attempt to commit a criminal
offence by setting up the trap to harm the dog. In the case of People V. Rivas(2016), the
court upheld a conviction for attempted animal cruelty where the defendant intended
to poison a neighbors dog. The court found that the defendant’s actions demonstrated a
specific intent to commit the crime , even though the dog did not consume the poisoned
food.

- Intent and Attempted Offences. Courts often consider evidence of specific intent to
commit a crime when evaluating charges of attempted criminal Offences. Even if the
intended harm does not occur due to external factors such as the absence of the dog, the
attempt to commit the offence can still be punishable. For instance,the case of R v.
Taylor (2017) involved a defendant who attempted to set a dog on fire but was
prevented from doing so. The court held that the defendant's actions constituted
attempted animal cruelty due to the specific intent to harm the animal.

- Melissa’s feeling regret and subsequent disposal of the trap may be seen as an attempt
to abandon the criminal activity. However, this does not necessarily absolve her of
liability for the initial attempt.
- From the perspective of criminal liability, both Melissa and Mathew are criminally
liable for the offence. Actus Reus played a role where Melissa bought the traps and
Mathew set the trap. Mens Rea also plays a role where Melissa and Mathew think and
decide to kill the dog. Actus Reus must be coupled with Mens Rea to establish criminal
liability.

Now, taking into consideration the second part of the question:

If Melissa successfully talked Mathew out of the initial plan, her liability could
potentially be reduced or eliminated. Intent is a crucial element in criminal liability. If
Melissa genuinely abandoned the plan before any harm was done, her liability for
attempted criminal offence may be less clear-cut.

CONCLUSION

Based on these legal principles and cases, Melissa's purchase and intent to use hunting
traps to harm the neighbor's dog could potentially result in charges of attempted
criminal offence . Additionally, if the traps were illegal or prohibited by law, Melissa
could also face charges related to possession of illegal traps. Matthew's actions in setting
up the trap with the intent to harm the dog would similarly support charges of
attempted criminal offence. The outcome might differ if Melissa intervened before any
harm was done, showing a genuine change of heart and abandonment of the criminal
plan.
WEEK 5 QUESTION 2

2.With the aid of legal authorities, discuss the operation of the rule against double
jeopardy in the Ghanaian legal system.

The rule of jeopardy,in criminal law is a principle that prohibits anyone from being
prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime.With notions of fairness and finality
in mind, the Framers of Ghana's Constitution included the Double Jeopardy Clause to
prevent the punishing of a defendant more than once.

This provision against double jeopardy can be found in Article 19 (7) of the
Constitution, 1992: No person who shows that he has been tried by a competent court
for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted, shall again be tried for that
offence or for any other criminal offence of which he could have been convicted at the
trial for the offence, except on the order of a superior court in the course of appeal or
review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal.

This means that when one has been tried for an offence, he cannot be tried again for the
same offence, whether his trial ended in an acquittal (autre fois acquit) or a conviction
(autre fois convict).

In ABABIO V THE STATE,it was held inter alia,that it is not the law that a person
cannot be tried twice for an act but for an offense. Hence the customary sanction given
to him was irrelevant of a criminal offense and as such he could be prosecuted for
violating the N.L.C.D.112,para 5A. This means that even though he had been punished
under customary law,he could still be punished by the courts.

Again in ESSIEN V. THE STATE,the accused appealed on the ground that the counts
were bad in law and fatal to conviction because they infringed on section 9 (1) of Act 29,
which says: "Where an act constitutes an offence under two or more enactments the
offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those
enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.t is not the
law that a person shall not be punished twice for the same act. The court ,presided over
by Djabanor held that The law is that a person shall not be punished twice for the same
offence. Bearing this in mind it would interpret section 9 (1) of Act 29 as stating that
whereone act or omission constitutes one offence under two or more enactments then
the prosecution must charge and prosecute only under one of the enactments. Here the
one act constituted two offences-not one- under different enactments, it was one offence
under the Road Traffic Ordinance and another offence under the Criminal Code. Thus
possessing firearms without authority is an offence under the Criminal Code and that
same offence is known under the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1962.5 In this case the
prosecution must elect under which enactment it will proceed

However,to this rule there is an exception

A person who has been tried once by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence,
and convicted or acquitted of the offence, shall not be liable to be tried again on the
same facts for the same offence or any other offence of which he could have lawfully
been convicted at the first trial unless a retrial is ordered by a Court having power to do
so. This means an individual can be tried for another offense only if the court orders a
retrial.
Another exception is in cases of treason and high treason,as stated in Article 19(2) "....,
an acquittal of a person on a trial for high treason shall not be a bar to the institution of
proceedings for any other offence against that person." Meaning that a person accused
of high treason can be tried for other offences levelled against him.

Another exception, however is made on retrials of separate charges.Section 114 on the

Criminal Procedure Act provides that A person convicted or acquitted of any offence
may be afterwards tried for any offence for which a separate charge might have been
made against him on the former trial under subsection (2) of section 109 of Act 29.
WEEK 8

James is facing trial for the murder of Bright, who died in the following circumstances.
On 10 July 2014, as Bright was leaving a pub in Accra, a man approached him and shot
him twice in the head and chest. He was rushed to the hospital where he remained in a
permanent vegetative state until his death on 4 October 2016. the immediate cause of
his death was pneumonia which he developed as a result of contracting an infection
while in hospital.

Can James lawfully be convicted of murder in light of the circumstances of Bright’s

death?

AREA OF LAW : Doctrine of causation in criminal law.

ISSUES : 1. Whether or not James's actions (shooting Bright) were a necessary

condition for Bright's death.

2. Whether James's actions were the legal cause of Bright's death, despite
the intervening event of Bright contracting an infection in the hospital.

RULES :

1. Rv. Pagett (1983): In this case, the court held that the defendant could be
liable for murder even though the immediate cause of the victim's death was an injury
inflicted by the police. The court reasoned that the defendant's actions were a
substantial and operating cause of the victim's death.
 2. Rv. Blaue (1975): In this case, the court held that the defendant could be
liable for murder even though the victim's death was caused by a refusal to accept a
blood transfusion. The court found that the defendant's actions were the cause of the
victim's injuries, and the victim's subsequent refusal of treatment did not break the
chain of causation.

3. Article 13 (1) states that "No person shall be deprived of his life
intentionally except in the execution of a sentence of a court in respect of a criminal
offence under the laws of Ghana of which he has been convicted."

APPLICATION :

1. Considering the ruling in Republic v Pagett, where it was held that a

defendant's dangerous acts that contribute significantly to the victim's death can lead to
a conviction for manslaughter, it is likely that James could be convicted of murder in
this scenario. His actions were a significant factor in the chain of events leading to
Bright's death, and therefore, he could be held responsible for murder. The pneumonia
and infection that led to Bright's death, while stemming from the initial shooting, were
a significant intervening event that broke the direct chain of causation between James'
actions and Bright's ultimate demise.

2. Applying the second principle to James' case, where Bright died as a result
of pneumonia developed in the hospital after being shot twice by James, it can be
argued that Bright's death was directly caused by James' actions. Just like in R v Blaue,
where the victim's refusal of treatment did not break the chain of causation, Bright's
development of pneumonia in the hospital can be seen as a direct consequence of the
gunshot wounds inflicted by James.

3. Based on Article 13(1) of the 1992 constitution, The key question is

whether James intentionally caused Bright's death by shooting him, even though the
immediate cause of death was pneumonia developed in the hospital. Given that James
intentionally shot Bright twice, leading to his injuries and subsequent death, it can be
argued that James intentionally deprived Bright of his life. The fact that Bright
ultimately died from pneumonia developed in the hospital does not absolve James of
responsibility for causing his death through his intentional actions.

CONCLUSION:
Based on the principles of causation in criminal law and the relevant court cases, James
may be lawfully convicted of murder, provided the prosecution can establish the
necessary causal link between his actions and Bright's death, despite the intervening
event of Bright contracting an infection in the hospital. This would not violate the
provisions of the Ghana Constitution, as the conviction would be in the execution of a
sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence.

WEEK 6

With the aid of legal authorities, describe the circumstances under which failure to act
will constitute an offence.

It has been established that one of the constituents of a crime is the Actus Reus:the
physical element of the crime The actus reus may be an act of commission or omission
simpliciter.We made the point earlier that sometimes a failure to act, i.e. omission, can
be the basis of criminal liability. Section 77 of Act 29 is the legal recognition of omission
to act as an offence

A duty to act may arise in several instances: a duty to act may be imposed on a person
by law. Section 78(b) compels a person under a duty by law to protect others to perform
his duties as such,in R v Dytham a policeman was convicted after he witnessed the
death of a nightclubber outside Cindy's nightclub but took no action to help because,
had he reported it then Dytham would have had to stay beyond the end of his shift.

Duty may also arise where one enters into a contract to perform a task. In R V
PITTWOOD, The defendant was employed by a railway company to man the gate at a
level crossing. The defendant lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass and then went off to
lunch failing to put it back down. A train later collided with a horse and cart killing the
train driver. He was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter because he had a
contractual duty to shut the gate but failed to perform the task

In other times, a duty is deliberately assumed by a person in circumstances recognized

by the law as giving rise to a duty o for instance, if one decides to care for a helpless
person, that decision to assist stands as a message to thewhole world that one has taken
charge of the situation – therefore,one may not abandon the helpless person because the
law would enforce the decision to assist. Section 79(5) states that A person who has
agreed or undertaken to supply any of the necessaries of health and life to another
person, whether that other person is a servant, an apprentice or otherwise, is under a
duty to supply them accordingly.R V STONE AND DOBINSON where a couple were
held liable for the death of Stone's sister after failing to take care of her after agreeing to
look after her.

Discuss the proportionality rule in the defence of self defence.

The proportionality rule is a fundamental principle that governs the use of force
in self-defense. It states that the level of force used by an individual to defend
themselves must be proportionate, or reasonable, in relation to the threat they are
facing. The underlying rationale behind this rule is to strike a balance between the
individual's right to self-preservation and the need to prevent the escalation of violence
or the use of excessive

force. The law recognizes that individuals have a legitimate right to defend themselves
against unlawful attacks or threats, but it also imposes limits on the extent of that
defense to prevent it from becoming a disproportionate or unjustified use of force. The
proportionality rule requires that the force used in self-defense be the minimum
necessary to repel the attack and protect the individual. It means that the defender
should not use more

force than is reasonably required to neutralize the threat and ensure their own safety.

The principle of proportionality is enshrined in various international

instruments, such as the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and
Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990). According to Principle 5(b) of the 1990
basic principles , whenever lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law
enforcement officials must "minimize damage and injury" and "respect and preserve
human life". The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that proportionality
"is also related to the planning of preventive measures, since it involves an assessment
of the reasonableness of the use of force.

Handbook on the Use of Force in Law Enforcement (2017) published by the Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasize that, the
amount of force employed in self-defence must be limited to that which is reasonable
and necessary to deter, stop or neutralize the threat in the given circumstances. Thus,
the determination of whether a use of force in self-defence is lawful is made on the basis
of two linked factors:

Is the use of force reasonable and necessary in the circumstances?

Is the amount of force used reasonable in relation to the threat ?

These documents emphasize that law enforcement officials, and by extension,
individuals acting in self-defense, should use force only when strictly necessary and to
the minimum extent required.

In the field of criminal law, scholars like Glanville Williams, in his book "Criminal
Law," have extensively discussed the proportionality requirement as a key element in
the justification of self-defense.

The principle mentioned in the Nicaragua Case, as articulated by Judge Higgins,

raises a complex and contentious issue in modern international relations regarding the
use of force in self-defense against non-state actors. This principle challenges traditional
notions of self-defense, which have primarily focused on state-to-state conflicts, by
suggesting that attacks by non-state actors may also trigger the right of self-defense for
the targeted state.

Applying this principle to the discussion of the proportionality rule in the defense of
self-defense further complicates the matter. The proportionality rule, as previously
explained, requires individuals to use only the amount of force that is necessary and
reasonable in response to an imminent threat. However, when dealing with non-state
actors, such as insurgent groups or terrorist organizations, determining what
constitutes proportionate force becomes even more challenging.

The criminal offenses Act(29) of Ghana provides a strong foundation for the
proportionality rule in self-defense. Section 37 states that, “For the prevention of, or for
personal defence, or the defence of any other person against a criminal offence, or for
the suppression or dispersion of a riotous or an unlawful assembly, a person may
justify the use of force or harm which is reasonably necessary extending in case of
extreme necessity even to killing . By aligning the principle from the article with the
proportionality rule in international law, it becomes evident that the use of force in self-
defense must be carefully calibrated to meet the specific circumstances of each situation.
States and individuals must balance the imperative of protecting themselves or others
with the legal requirement of using force only to the extent necessary to address the
threat at hand.

In conclusion, the principle articulated in the article reinforces the fundamental

concept of self-defense and justifies the use of force when facing imminent danger.
Upholding the proportionality rule in the defense of self-defense is crucial to striking a
delicate balance between protection and proportionality, thereby ensuring that any
response is commensurate with the threat posed and aligns with legal norms and
human rights principles. By adhering to these principles, states and individuals can
effectively address security challenges while upholding the fundamental tenets of
international law.

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and determine cases. The

"American and English Encyclopedia of Law," 244, defines it as "the authority by which

judicial of- ficers take cognizance of and decide causes." Article 4(1) of the 1992

Constitution states the territories of Ghana as ''......those territories comprised in the

regions which, immediately before the coming into force of this Constitution, existed in

Ghana including the territorial sea and the air',. Article 125 (5)of the 1992 Constitution

gives the judiciary jurisdiction over all matters,civil and criminal.

In the scope of Criminal Law, jurisdiction refers to the term used to describe the power

of courts to hear criminal cases brought to the court. The premise outlining the

jurisdiction of the Ghanaian courts in the adjudication of criminal cases is Section 56 of

the Courts Act,459. Three principles regulate the jurisdiction of courts: the territoriality

principle,the nationality principle and the protective principle

The territoriality principle is the most basic principle of jurisdiction.Under the

territoriality principle, jurisdiction obtains over acts that have been committed within

the territory. In Ghana, the territorial jurisdiction of the courts is limited to the

territories mentioned in Article 4 by Section 56 (1) which states that the courts can only

preside over criminal cases which are comitted in Ghana. However,the jurisdiction of

the courts is widened over the borders by clause 2 , which states that where a criminal

offence us conmitted partly in Ghana and partly outside Ghana,the case shall be tried in
Ghana as though it were committed fully in Ghana.This means even though the offense

was not committed fully in Ghana,the partly outside the jurisdiction of the Ghanaian

courts,the offender or offendors will be tried as though the act was committed fully in

Ghana

The nationality principle permits a country to exercise criminal jurisdiction over any

of its nationals accused of criminal offenses in another state. This has been enacted into

the Ghanaian law by clause 3 of Section 56. The nationality principle is in two parts:the

passive and active aspect. The passive aspect allows states, in limited cases, to claim

jurisdiction to try a foreign national for offenses committed abroad that affect its own

citizens. This principle has been used by the United States to prosecute terrorists and

even to arrest (in 1989–90) the de facto leader of Panama, Manuel Noriega, who was

subsequently convicted by an American court of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and

money laundering. The active aspect gives states the authority to make criminal laws

for its citizens wherever they find themselves.

The protective principle of criminal jurisdiction allows states to prohibit and

prosecute certain crimes committed wholly outside their territories by persons who are

not their nationals. This is envinced in Section 56(4) where because of the public interest

of the state,non citizens who perform any of the acts in the list of offences against the

state outside the territories of Ghana will be tried in Ghana.