REPUBLIC vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS; EX PARTE ALLOTEY AND ANOTHER [1974]DLHC2319

Date	1974-07-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2319

ABOAGYE J.

AMARFIO FOR THE APPLICANTS.

GYEKE-DAKO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1974]DLHC2319
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;DIRECTOR OF PRISONS; EX
PARTE ALLOTEY AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1974] 2 GLR 197<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 8 JULY 1974.<o:p></o:p>

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

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>AMARFIO FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

GYEKE-DAKO,
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, 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 black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABOAGYE J.<o:p></o:p>On 29
August 1973, his honour Judge Andoh (as he then was), sitting as a district
magistrate, committed the applicants to the James Fort Prison to await the
warrant of the appropriate commissioner for their surrender to the Government
of the United States to stand trial for the offence of fraud by false
pretences.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
committal, the applicants were told of their right under section 11 (1) of the
Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), to apply for an order of habeas corpus. An
application for an order of habeas corpus was accordingly made to the High
Court on behalf of the applicants but the order was refused on 20 September
1973 in a ruling reported in [1973] 2 G.L.R. 480. The applicants appealed to
the Court of Appeal against the order of the High Court and the appeal was
dismissed on 19 June 1974. The applicants did not appeal against the decision
of the district magistrate. They have nearly ten months after the magistrate
had given his decision applied to this court for an extension of time within
which to appeal against the decision of the magistrate.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing of the application, Mr. Gyeke-Dako, Director of Public Prosecutions,
submitted that the application could not be entertained for two reasons,
namely, (1) that the applicants had no locus standi and (2) that the point
which the applicants intend to argue, if their application were granted, has
already been disposed of by the Court of Appeal which is the highest court of
the land. Mr. Gyeke-Dako argued that although a party aggrieved by the decision
of a district magistrate has a right under section 19 (3) of the Courts Act,
1971 (Act 372), to appeal to the High Court against that decision, a party
committed to prison by a district magistrate in extradition proceedings has no
right of appeal against the decision of the magistrate. Counsel argued that
extradition proceedings are governed by the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22), and
by section 11 (1) of the Act, if a magistrate commits a fugitive criminal to
prison pending his surrender to the requesting country his only remedy lies in
an application for an order of habeas corpus.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On his
second ground of objection the learned Director of Public Prosecutions pointed
out that in their appeal to the Court of Appeal the applicants complained,
among sixteen other grounds, that “the learned judge erred in holding that the
evidence produced at the trial was sufficient according to Ghana law to warrant
the committal of the appellants to face trial in the United States.” The
dismissal of their appeal implied that the Court of Appeal found that a
sufficient case was made out against the applicants in the district court. The
applicants should therefore not be permitted to appeal to the High Court on a
ground which has been determined by the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Amarfio, counsel for the applicants, does not agree that the only course open
to a fugitive criminal who is committed to prison by a district magistrate is
to apply for an order of habeas corpus. Counsel submitted that section 11 (1)
of the Extradition Act, 1960, merely imposes a duty on the magistrate to inform
the prisoner that he has a right to apply for an order of habeas corpus within
fifteen days of his committal to prison. That provision in the Act does not
exclude the right of the prisoner under section 19 (3) of the Courts Act, 1971,
to appeal against the decision of the magistrate.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
second ground of objection Mr. Amarfio argued that the appeal against the
decision in the habeas corpus proceedings was different from an appeal against
the decision o</main>