ATTEY AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [1972]DLHC2204

Date	1972-07-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2204

ATA-BEDU J.

KPEGAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

ADDO ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1972]DLHC2204
																																						<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" >ATTEY AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1972] 2 GLR 352<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
14 JULY 1972.<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">

KPEGAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

ATA-BEDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ATA-BEDU J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for bail pending appeal by the applicants who were on 5 June
1972 convicted on two charges of forcible entry by his worship D. K. Okyere
sitting as Magistrate Grade 1 at Hohoe and were each sentenced to a term of
nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
substance of the charges against the applicants is that, armed with cutlasses
and clubs, they entered the cottages of the first prosecution witness and the
second prosecution witness, set fire to the kitchen of the second prosecution
witness’s tenant, Subulegah, and to the second prosecution witness’s mattress
and firewood, removed the roofing sheets from the second prosecution witness’s
kitchen, destroyed cooking pots and a snare and carried away her iron pot,
table and fowls. At the cottage of the first prosecution witness they ordered
her to pack all her goods and leave without questioning and demanding reasons
for such an order; the first prosecution witness complied with the order and
left. The summary of the evidence contained in the judgment reveals that the
first and the second prosecution witnesses acquired the land by purchase.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Against
their convictions the applicants filed their petition on 6 June 1972, in which the
only ground of appeal urged, pending the filing of additional grounds, is that,
“The verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the
evidence.”<o:p></o:p>The power
to grant bail to a convicted person pending his appeal is contained in section
26 (5) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), which provides 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">“The
Court before which a person is convicted or the Court to which an appeal is
made may if it thinks fit on the application of an appellant admit the
appellant to bail pending the determination of his appeal.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
332 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), which similarly empowers
the High Court to grant bail reads 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">“After
the filing of a petition of appeal by any person entitled to appeal, and
pending the hearing, the High Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in
writing, order that the execution of a sentence or order appealed against be
suspended and also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on
his own bond.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From
these provisions it is quite obvious that the grant of bail to convicted
persons is not automatic but discretionary. It is a course which is unusual but
which may be taken in exceptional circumstances considering the principle that
a conviction is deemed to be right until it is proved otherwise. In the
exercise of their discretion in matters of applications for bail by convicted
prisoners, the courts are guided by principles clearly laid dow</main>