FORSON vs. THE REPUBLIC [1975]DLHC386

Date	1975-11-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1975]DLHC386

TAYLOR J.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

MISS FLORENCE OKINE ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1975]DLHC386
																																						<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" >FORSON<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 138<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:
24 NOVEMBER 1975.<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">

APPELLANT IN PERSON.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>I must
preface this judgment with an expression of a deep concern which has built up
gradually over the years as to the apparent difficulty of our courts to
dispense justice to our people particularly the poor class. I have had criminal
appeals in which the record of proceedings is bulky running into hundreds of
pages, but the record has nevertheless been prepared and certified within a
month or a few weeks after judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
cases before me the appellant was convicted on 12 August 1974, his record of
proceedings in one case is about eleven pages, three of which are concerned
with adjournments and two with his statement to the police, another page merely
deals with the charge sheet. In the second case the actual record of
proceedings is less than five pages. There is in my view no reason or possible
excuse why such a record should not be made available a week or so after 6
September 1974, the date the appellant appealed and yet the case came before me
for summary hearing for the first time on 12 November 1975, more than one year
after trial and even then the record was not complete. The trial itself in a
case having only three witnesses had taken over one year to conclude. There can
be no doubt that the machinery of justice devised by the legislature to protect
this appellant has worked havoc in his case and has been operated so as to
produce an injustice. This must be looked into by the authorities to avoid such
future situations.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
respect, it seems to me that it is of utmost importance for the efficient and
fair administration of criminal justice in this country, that our registries
should be properly supervised and their work undertaken by men dedicated and
with a sense of responsibility; men who must appreciate the demoralising effect
and the suffering which their careless and nonchalant attitude to work could
cause to persons allegedly involved in crime, particularly as often happens
when such persons are found innocent and are discharged. By their irresponsible
conduct they could cause such persons to serve unlawful sentences.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant in this case was first arraigned on 7 August 1973 before the district
court grade I on a charge of assault contrary to section 84 of the Criminal
Code, 1960 (Act 29). The charge sheet was headed case No. 719/73 and the
particulars of offence contained in the charge sheet are 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">“Yaw
Forson: Labourer: For that you on 31 July 1973 at Ashiamang in the Accra-Tema
Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court did unlawfully
assault one Comfort Ayenu.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He
pleaded not guilty to the charge on 7 August 1973 and he was admitted to bail
with one surety in the sum of ¢200.00. After a series of adjournments he failed
to appear in court on 28 November 1973 when the case was called although he had
previously appeared on every adjourned date. A bench warrant was therefore on
the order of the court issued for his arrest and on 21 January 1974 he was
brought to the court on the bench warrant. The trial did not commence on that
day and he was then remanded in custody and he stayed in custody until the
trial began on 21 February 1974. Thereafter he remained in custody until
judgment was delivered on 12 August 1974. On that day the district magistrate
found the charge against him proved. He convicted him and sentenced him to a fine
of ¢50.00 or six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. He made an order that
¢20.00 out of the fine if paid should be given as compensation to the
complainant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>