REPUBLIC vs. ARTHUR [1981]DLHC11005

Date	1981-12-21
Suit No.	[1982-83] GLR 249
Citation No.	[1981]DLHC11005

OKUNOR J.

KWESI SPIO FOR THE APPLICANTS.

SAM BADDOO PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1981]DLHC11005
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ARTHUR<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

[1982-83] GLR 249&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;DATE:21 DECEMBER 1981<o:p></o:p>

</div><h1 style="margin-left:0cm">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></h1>KWESI SPIO FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SAM BADDOO,
PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

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

</div>&nbsp;<h1 style="margin-left:0cm">JUDGMENT OF OKUNOR J.<o:p></o:p></h1>The
first applicant in this matter was granted bail by this court some time in June
when there was neither an indictment nor a summary of evidence served on him.<o:p></o:p>Subsequent to that date, the applicant has been served with an indictment and summary of evidence and indeed
he has been committed to stand trial for murder
in this court. The committal proceedings were &nbsp;conducted only on
19 November 1981. Exactly one month after the committal proceedings,
this application for bail was filed alleging that there is no likelihood of the case
being heard within a reasonable time and consequently the
applicant be granted bail.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I do not think there is any material
before this court to give the court an indication that the trial shall not be conducted within a reasonable time; and I
would therefore refuse the
application.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Like
the first applicant, the second and the third applicants were also committed to
stand trial only in November 1981. It
was argued on their behalf that there are older cases which are likely to be heard before theirs and they shall have stayed an unreasonable time in
custody before the trial. The learned Principal
State Attorney has indicated that the difficulties plaguing his office with
respect to the cases which have not
been heard, namely unavailability of witnesses, do not exist in this particular
case, and there would be no unreasonable delay in bringing
the applicants to trial.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I
think the provisions of article 21 of the Constitution, 1979, have got to be
employed with a certain amount of
circumspection. Certain crimes take a longer time to investigate than others
and what is an “unreasonable period”
must be determined within the particular context of each case before the court.
I do