THE REPUBLIC vs JOHN ARTHUR EVANS (AT LARGE)

This case is a cautionary tale of citizens’ arrest and the dangers involved. What constitutes an attempt to commit a crime and to what extent can a private person arrest another for suspicion of crime. When harm is caused during such a private arrest what are the consequences for the one who inflicts the harm and what justifications might exist in those circumstances as a defence. The facts of the case are that on the dawn of 19th August 2023 the complainant in this case saw the accused person and another person around his room. Suspecting they were thieves and were about to commit a crime, he started shouting “thief, thief”. The accused person and his alleged accomplice upon hearing this sound took to their heels. The accused person however was caught by the complainant who held him and refused to let go. The accused person then slashed the right arm of the complainant who in paid released him. The complainant later led some men to the house of the accused where he was arrested. The accused defence to the charge was to deny that he had been in the vicinity of the complainant’s house to steal. According to him he was returning from a program and on his way home and had no intention to steal from the complainant or to aid and abet Evans, the other person was able to escape.

The prosecution made its case through the complainant himself and the police investigator who tendered into evidence statements given by accused person upon his arrest. The law is consistent in that, generally in criminal cases the burden of establishing the guilt of an accused person lies on the prosecution. Since it is the case of prosecution that an accused person has committed an offence; the prosecution has the burden to establish each essential elements of the offence. See section 15 which provides that

Unless and until it is shifted, the person claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden of persuasion on that issue. The burden of persuasion on the issue according to sections 11(2) and 13(1) of NRCD 323 requires that the proof presented must be sufficient so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt.

See also the cases of Kwaku Frimpong v the Republic

Amartey v the State

Gligah and another v The Republic

The accused person is charged with three counts of offences. The first is conspiracy to commit the offence of stealing contrary to section 23(1) and 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act; a