STATE vs. ANNAN AND OTHERS [1965]DLHC1853

Date	1965-10-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1853

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

GYEKE-DAKO SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY AND AIKINS STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE.

ARMAH FOR THE FIRST ACCUSED.

OKUDJETO FOR THE SECOND ACCUSED.

MENSAH FOR THE THIRD ACCUSED.

MRS. HARLLEY FOR THE FOURTH ACCUSED.

ZWENNES FOR THE FIFTH ACCUSED.

[1965]DLHC1853
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >STATE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ANNAN AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 600<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
8 OCTOBER 1965.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

GYEKE-DAKO, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY AND AIKINS,
STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE STATE.<o:p></o:p>

OKUDJETO FOR THE SECOND ACCUSED.<o:p></o:p>

MENSAH FOR THE THIRD ACCUSED.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. HARLLEY FOR THE FOURTH ACCUSED.<o:p></o:p>

ZWENNES FOR THE FIFTH ACCUSED.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>At the
last hearing of this case, the prosecution after calling the fiftieth witness
finally closed their case. Learned counsel for each of the accused submitted
that no case had been made out against any of the accused persons on any of the
counts preferred against them. Learned senior state attorney then withdrew the
charges against the fourth and fifth accused persons on count 3, and also
withdrew counts 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10. I therefore acquitted the third accused on
counts 4, 5 and 6; the fourth accused on all the counts preferred against him,
and the fifth accused on counts 8, 9 and 10. The senior state attorney then
replied to the submission on the remaining and subsisting counts. I reserved
ruling till today on the submission whether or not the prosecution have made
out a case for the accused persons to be called upon to answer.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In Ghana,
the position at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution is governed by
express statutory provisions. Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1960,1
provides:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“If at
the close of the evidence in support of the charge, it appears to the Court
that a case is not made out against the accused sufficiently to require him to
make a defence, the Court shall, as to that particular charge, acquit him.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
refers to summary trials. The provisions relating to trials on indictment are
found in section 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, which states:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The
Judge may consider at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution whether
there is any case for submission to the jury, and if the Judge is of opinion
that there is no evidence that the accused has committed any offence of which
he could be lawfully convicted on the indictment upon which he is being tried,
the Judge shall forthwith direct the jury to enter a verdict of not guilty and
shall acquit the accused.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
section deals with trials on indictment, and its wording may seem to indicate
that the draftsman had in view trials by jury. In State v. Ali Kassena2 these
provisions came up for consideration and Azu Crabbe J.S.C. (as he then was)
giving the unanimous decision of the court said, “We think that the variation in
the language of the two sections is deliberate, and it underlines the functions
of a judge in a summary trial and trial by jury.” That case was an appeal from
a jury trial, whereas in this case, I decided to sit with the aid of assessors.
If that proposition is well-founded, and the variation in language was
deliberate as underlying the functions of judge and jury, then it seems to me
that the judge being the judge of both law and fact in trials with the aid of
assessors, his powers of upholding a submission of no case would be wider in
trials with assessors than in trials by jury. Happily I am not called upon to
decide this point in this trial. I shall assume that the powers of upholding a
submission of no case are the same in all trials on indictment whether by jury
or </main>