GABRIEL JOANNE v. THE REPUBLIC
2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC (PRESIDING)
- OWUSU (MS) JSC
- DOTSE JSC
- YEBOAH
- GBADEGBE JSC
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human rights Law
- Constitutional Law
2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, arrested in Ghana for drug-related offenses, was initially represented by counsel and pleaded not guilty. After her co-accused changed their pleas to guilty and were convicted, the appellant, in the absence of her lawyer, changed her plea to guilty and was subsequently convicted. She appealed, arguing that the plea should not have been accepted without her lawyer present and without clarifying the consequences. Her appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court were dismissed, with the majority holding finding the conviction justified despite procedural lapses. The dissenting opinion emphasized the violation of her constitutional rights, underscoring the necessity for proper procedures to ensure a fair trial.
J U D G M E N T
ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC:
I have the privilege of reading beforehand the opinion of my eminent sister Justice Owusu and I agree with her conclusion that the appeal is without merit.
I also had the opportunity to read the dissenting opinion of my esteemed brother Justice Dotse which turned on ground (b) of the appeal. I wish his permission make some comments in relation to that ground.
Ground (b):
‘’The Court of Appeal erred when it held that the trial High Court was right in accepting the plea of the appellant in the absence of her counsel without explaining the consequences to the appellant.’
His Lordship discussed Articles 14 (2) and 19 (2) (f) of the 1992 Constitution in relation to this ground of appeal.
Article 14 (2) provides that:
“14(2) a person, who is arrested, restricted or detained, shall be informed immediately in a language that he understands of the reasons of his arrest and detention and of his right to a lawyer of his choice.”
I do agree with my brother Justice Dotse that our Courts must observe best practices in the administration of justice especially when it affects the liberty of the individual. It is fair to say that the best practice as envisaged in the Miranda rights referred to by Justice Dotse and what is called the Judges Rules in the UK have been applied and observed in the administration of criminal justice in this country. It is indeed a standard procedure and requirement. It is trite law that any breach of these rules in the course of the arrest detention and interrogation by the police or any arresting officer or enquiry renders any confession statement given by a suspect or any evidence obtained in the process, inadmissible at a trial.
Article 14 (2) reflects these values that seeks to protect personal liberty. However this provision is with all due respect not applicable in this instant case as the appellant’s complaint is that the judge erred in accepting the plea of the appellant in the absence of her lawyer.
The relevant article is rather Article 19 (2) (f) that provides:
(2) A person charged with a criminal offence shall
(f) be permitted to defend himself before the court in person or by a lawyer of his choice.
An accused person is vested under this article with the right to defend herself or by a lawyer of his choice. This Court in a unanimous decision in the case of The Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra: Ex parte Tsatsu Tsikata [2007-2008] SCGLR 1200 had the occasion to def