ESSIEN V. THE STATE

DJABANOR J.: The question for determination in this appeal is the correct interpretation of section 9(1) of the Criminal/Code, 19601

The appellant was charged on the same charge sheet with one count of dangerous driving contrary to the Road Traffic Ordinance, 19522, and two counts of negligently causing harm contrary to the Criminal Code, 1960. He was prosecuted and found guilty and convicted on all three counts. He has appealed to this court on the point of law that these counts are bad in law and fatal to the conviction in that they sinned against the express provisions of section 9(1) of Act 29 which provides:

“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.”

It is to be observed that this section is identical with section 33 of the English Interpretation Act, 18893. In a very forceful argument counsel fo…