REPUBLIC v. KWAMI AND OTHERS PRACTICE NOTE
November 13, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- FRANCOIS J
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
November 13, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.
The short point in this appeal is whether the magistrate was right to stop further hearing of the criminal trial and acquit the accused when he was satisfied that the conflicts in the prosecution’s evidence were of such magnitude that no conviction could lie. It was urged by the learned counsel for the State that the magistrate was only authorised to discharge the accused if the prosecution had not concluded its evidence, an acquittal being possible only after the entire prosecution case had been made.
I am satisfied that the point has been well taken. Paragraph 85 (2) of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), empowers the magistrate to dismiss the charge and not to acquit an accused. By section 59 (1) (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), an acquittal is only possible after the close of the prosecution’s case.
The purported exercise of a jurisdiction under paragraph 85 (2) of N.L.C.D. 84 to acquit the accused was therefore erroneous and on that ground the appeal succeeds. The state attorney has however given an undertaking that the accused persons will be in no jeopardy of further molestation by the police. I trust that positive steps will be taken to honour this undertaking, as I hold that the magistrate erred not on the merits but on a purely technical issue.
DECISION
Appeal allowed.
L.F.A.
AI Generated Summary
Francois J, sitting on appeal, addressed a narrow procedural question arising from a criminal trial before a magistrate. The magistrate halted the hearing and entered an acquittal because he concluded that conflicts in the prosecutions evidence were so substantial that no conviction could follow, even though the prosecution had not closed its case. On appeal, counsel for the State argued that at that interlocutory stage the magistrates powers were limited to dismissing or discharging the charge, not to entering a final acquittal, and that any acquittal could only be pronounced at the close of the prosecutions case. Relying on paragraph 85(2) of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84) and section 59(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), the court agreed, allowed the States appeal, and emphasised that the magistrates error was technical rather than merits-based. The State Attorney undertook that the accused would not face further police molestation.