AMOO vs. THE STATE [1967]DLHC1449

Date	1967-02-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1449

ANTERKYI J.

DR. J. W. DE GRAFT JOHNSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

ODOI. ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE.

[1967]DLHC1449
																																						<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" >AMOO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 67<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:
22 FEBRUARY
1967.<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">

DR. J. W. DE GRAFT JOHNSON FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

ODOI. ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE STATE.<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">

ANTERKYI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANTERKYI J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant was convicted on charges of (1) extortion, contrary to section 239
(1) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and (2) obstructing a public officer,
contrary to section 205 (a.) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the story of the prosecution, the first prosecution witness (Maria Lagos), a
petty trader living at Accra, was selling king size cigarettes “at the Beach
Avenue and Knutsford” at about 10.30 a.m. on 1 June 1965 when the accused, an
escort police constable, came and held her by the hand and challenged her to
the effect that the cigarettes she was selling were contraband goods. When she
denied them to be so, and the accused had put her under arrest, she started
begging him. She followed him into a store, in which there was the fourth
prosecution witness. The accused eventually made a demand from her for an
amount of £G5 to enable him to drop the matter. As the first prosecution
witness had no money on her, she went out and sought aid from the second
prosecution witness who could only give her one pound in two ten-shilling
currency notes.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
prosecution witness brought these notes to the accused and he received them,
wrapping them with a paper. While the first prosecution witness and the accused
were leaving the spot, the third prosecution witness, Haman Daramani, a
detective sergeant, who had observed the proceedings, called the accused and
told him to surrender the money he had in his left hand. The accused looked at
the sergeant and took to his heels, but the sergeant, the third prosecution
witness, succeeded in arresting him a few yards away. During a struggle which
ensued the accused threw into a gutter the currency notes wrapped with the
paper. The fifth prosecution witness (Tairu Zabrama) who happened to be at the spot,
fetched the money from the gutter at the request of the third prosecution
witness, and, as he was handing the wrapped notes to the sergeant, the accused
grabbed them, put the notes into his mouth and chewed and swallowed them, and
dropped the wrapper. The accused and the prosecution witnesses were taken to
the police station where he was subsequently charged with the above offences
and brought before the court on 18 June 1965. The accused first appeared before
the court on 18 June 1965. When he pleaded not guilty to each of the charges he
was remanded in custody, the case being adjourned to 25 June 1965. On 25 June
1965, according to the record, the same magistrate sat twice on this case; the
notes of the first sitting show: “Adjourned to 2 July 1965 for hearing.” Those
of the second sitting show: “Adjourned to 9 July 1965.” As the accused was in
custody an adjournment from 25 June 1965 to 9 July 1965 covers a period of
fourteen days, and thus sins against sections 169 (2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1960 (Act 30), which states: “The adjournment shall not be for more than
fifteen clear days, or if the accused person has been committed to prison, for
more than seven clear days, the day following that on which the adjournment is
made being counted as the first day.” The proceedings of the first sitting and
those of the second sitting, and the fact that the same district magistrate sat
twice on the very case on the very day without any reasons being given for the
enlargement of the period legally necessary for the accused being kept in
custody, are all matters which must be taken into consideration in the hearing
of this appeal. On 9 July 1965, when the accused appeared before the same
district magistrate, he was represented by counsel, Mr. Ofei, and the hearing
started with the evidence of the first prosecution witness. After he had been
cross-examined, the case was adjourned to 15 July 1965. On 15 July 1965 he
appeared before the same district magistrate. No evidence was heard. The case
was thence adjourned to 17 July 1965. It appears that there was no court
sitting on 17 July 1965, but on 24 July 1965 the accused appeared before a
different magistrate who admitted him to bail in the sum of £G200 and “two
sureties to be justified,” and the case was adjourned to 5 August 1965, and
thence to 19 August 1965, and subsequently to 2 September 1965, by this
magistrate when he appeared before him. On 2 September 1965 the accused
appeared on this bail before the magistrate who had previously remanded him in
custody, and had taken the evidence of the first prosecution witness
subsequently, and he adjourned the case to 16 September 1965, with the accused
still on this bail granted by the other magistrate. On 16 September 1965, the
accused appeared before this magistrate, and the prosecution’s case continued
with the evidence of the second, third, fourth, and fifth prosecution witnesses.
During this part of the proceedings the accused was not represented by counsel.
After the cross-examination of the fifth prosecution witness by the accused,
there appears on the record the following notes: “Accused remanded in custody.
Adjourned to 23 September 1965.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It must
be recalled that this trial distri</main>