COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. ANOM AND OTHERS [1965]DLSC1793

Date	1965-06-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1793

MILLS-ODOI JSC

OLLENNU JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN SEN. FOR THE APPELLANTS.

K. A. SEKYI STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLSC1793
																																						<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" >COMMISSIONER OF POLICE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANOM AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 512<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:
28 JUNE 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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, SEN. FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

K. A. SEKYI, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

MILLS-ODOI, OLLENNU AND SIRIBOE
J.J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SIRIBOE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Siriboe
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The three appellants (the first an
inspector of police, the second a police corporal and the third a detective
constable of the Ghana Police Service) were tried and convicted in Accra by the
circuit judge, his honour Mr. F. N. Amarteifio on 9 September 1963, for the
offences of extortion involving an amount of £G500 and stealing 55 cases of
drinkables and five cartons of safety matches valued at approximately £G1,000.
They were accordingly sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard
labour on each count, concurrent, in the case of the first appellant, and
thirteen months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each count, concurrent, in
the case of the second and third appellants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Thereafter
they appealed against their convictions to the High Court, presided over by
Annie Jiagge J. who dismissed their appeals on 23 January 1964. It is from this
latter decision that they have now appealed to this court on a number of
grounds filed but three only of which were argued by learned counsel on their
behalf. These are, in the order argued by counsel, as follows:<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">“(4) The
identification parade being irregular the trial was as a result unsatisfactory.
(2) The principal witnesses, apart from the police witnesses, were as found by
the learned circuit judge accomplices and there was clearly no corroboration of
the evidence. (6) The tenth prosecution witness having been put forward as a
witness of truth and whose evidence being consistent with the evidence of the
defence should have been believed and the accused accordingly discharged and
acquitted.”<o:p></o:p>And now a
brief account of the facts of the case before we come to consider the arguments
of learned counsel: The three appellants were at all times material to the date
of preferring of the charges which led to their conviction, i.e. on or about 16
November 1962, stationed at Teshie Police Station. The first appellant was in
charge of the station, the other two being his subordinates. According to the
prosecution, the first prosecution witness and ten others (who did not appear
to give evidence because they could not be traced) bought a quantity of
drinkables (of different kinds), cigarettes and matches from Ada on 15 November
1962 and brought the same to Teshie where they arrived at about 1 a.m. on 16
November 1962. There were in all 157 cases (34 of which were claimed by the
first prosecution witness) which included gin, Martell brandy, schnapps,
cigarettes and three star safety matches, and these were kept in the room of
one Tsaale with the latter’s consent, after which the first prosecution witness
and his people left for Ashiaman.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Soon
after this, the eighth prosecution witness who owns the house where the goods
were stored but lives in another of his houses, proceeded to that house,
following information he had received while in bed. On arrival, he met the
first and second appellants in uniform who challenged him as being a thief,
which he denied. They asked him to open Tsaale’s room for them which he did,
and they found cases of drinkables packed inside which almost filled the room.
Tsaale was then not present. The police took these cases away on a vehicle in
three trips.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Linking
this up is the evidence of the fourth prosecution witness who said that about
the same time as the removal of the drinkables took place, the first appellant
went and told him that he and other policemen had seized certain goods, for
which they wanted a place to keep. As a result he showed them a bathroom in his
house then not in use, where the first and second appellants kept cases of
drinkables numbering over a hundred, which they brought on a police jeep in
three trips. Before leaving, the first appellant told him they would return in
the morning to collect the goods to the station, but according to the fourth
prosecution witness, the first and second appellants and a police driver came
in the morning and collected only part of the goods. It was only one trip they
made.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>