Blackall, P. The grounds of appeal in this case were identical for all the appellants, except that in a few of them there appeared a ground that the trial judge misdirected himself on the defence of alibi, but no particulars of the misdirection were given. This Court on many occasions has pointed out that where misdirection is complained of, it must be stated whether it is one of law or fact, and its nature must also be stated. The prosecution is entitled to know what case they have to meet (Fielding (1) ).
A number of the other grounds were put down as questions of law under Form III, whereas they were actually questions of fact for which leave to appeal has to be obtained. They were therefore struck out. That left grounds 3 and 6.
Mr. Koi-Larbi abandoned ground 6 so the only ground left was ground 3, i.e. that the judge did not direct himself on the law relating to each count. There again no particulars were given. However, as the prisoners were charged under section 324 of the Criminal Code this Court decided to reserve the decision as the interpretation of that section fell to be considered in Rex v. Appiah Dankwa and - Others (2) which judgment of the Court has just been delivered.
The only point, therefore, that remains is whether the present case can be regarded as distinguishable from that one. It is true that this case was more of a tribal riot than the other, and there was no attack on the police. But we have already held that section 324 is not to be interpreted as restricted to armed attacks upon the servants of the central Government: it is in perfectly general terms and applies to any attack with armed force on any persons or class of persons.*Page 141The other point argued was that the appellants could not be convicted both of preparing to attack and of attacking. That has also been disposed of in the judgment just delivered. As leave was refused on questions of fact and as there was no appeal against sentence, this disposes of the matter, and all the appeals are dismissed.