STATE v. TABBEY
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- MILLS-ODOI
- AKAINYAH
- LASSEY JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved determining the admissibility of a non-cautioned statement made by the respondent before being suspected of a crime. The circuit court initially ruled the statements inadmissible, leading to higher court review under the Criminal Procedure Code. The higher court held that the statement taken from the respondent was admissible, set the principle that voluntary statements under certain conditions are admissible, and clarified the extent of police obligations in questioning suspects. The legal principles highlighted judicial discretion, the conditions for the admissibility of statements, and the scope of police questioning.
JUDGMENT OF MILLS-ODOI J.S.C.
Mills-Odoi J.S.C. delivered the reasons for the judgment of the court. The court has already given its opinion on the matters raised in the case stated by the circuit court judge at Cape Coast, and we now give our reasons. This case concerns the fourth accused, A. B. Tabbey, who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent.
The respondent and the other four accused were arraigned before the Circuit Court, Cape Coast, on charges of conspiracy to steal and stealing the sum of £G2,326 or ¢5,582.40, the property of one Alhaji Jaji. During the course of the trial a fierce controversy arose over the question of admissibility of a statement which the respondent made to the police on 15 October 1965 when the case was under investigation and when he had not been suspected of any complicity in the crime. It was an ordinary statement made by him, not on caution, as the police intended at that time to treat him as a witness for the prosecution.
The circumstances which led to the dispute over the issue of admissibility of the statement, as set out by the court below, are as follows:
"Originally the police contemplated charging the first three of the accused persons with the two counts and treating the [p.623] fourth and fifth accused persons as prosecution witnesses. On 15 October 1965 witness statements were obtained from these two persons. On 16 November 1965 the police obtained investigation statements on caution from each of the last two accused persons. Each of the cautioned statements relied on the witness statement (not on caution) made on 15 October 1965. At the trial the prosecution attempted to tender the statements made on 1 5 October 1965 but counsel for the defence objected on the ground that the statements were originally taken as ordinary witness statements and not investigation statements against the accused persons. The prosecution on the other hand contended that any statement at all made by a person was admissible against him under the general rule of admission and referred to the Judge's Rule 1 at para. 1118 of Archbold Criminal Law and Practice."
After arguments of counsel on both sides on the question of admissibility of the statements had been heard the circuit court judge held that the statements were inadmissible and caused them to be marked as rejected, his reasons for so doing are contained in the following passages:
“If at the time the statement was made the fourth accused had been informed that he wa