REPUBLIC vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS; EX PARTE YEBOAH [1984]DLCA979

Date	1984-09-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA979

APALOO CJ

EDWARD WIREDU JA

ANSAH-TWUM J

JOHNNY HANSEN FOR THE APPELLANT.

MRS JOYCE BAMFORD ADDO AG. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WITH HER SAM BADDOO

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY AND WILLIAMS ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1984]DLCA979
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 91<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
7 SEPTEMBER, 1984<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

JOHNNY
HANSEN FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

MRS
JOYCE BAMFORD ADDO, AG. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WITH HER SAM BADDOO,
CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY, AND WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) 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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

APALOO CJ, EDWARD WIREDU JA AND ANSAH-TWUM J<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO CJ<o:p></o:p>On 11
June 1984, his Honour Judge Williams sitting as a district magistrate, in
response to a request from the United States Government ordered that the
appellant and his female companion be extradited to the United States to face
no fewer than fifteen charges of stealing and abetment of stealing—an
extraditable crime under section 29 of the Extradition Act, 1960 (Act 22).
Pending his surrender, he was ordered to be committed to prison.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant claimed that his imprisonment was unlawful as well as the order for
his surrender. He therefore sought from the High Court, an order for his
release by the well-known remedy of habeas corpus. In the High Court, the
appellant by his counsel challenged the validity of the order surrendering him
on a number of legal grounds. Having listened to and considered the very able
and detailed submissions made on his behalf, the learned judge felt satisfied
that the order for his surrender was well warranted and declined to order his
release.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is his
refusal that provoked this appeal. The appellant invites us by counsel to hold
that the judge below was in error and that he was entitled to be released. As
formulated in the notice of appeal, the ground on which the appellant proposed
to invite us to reverse the court below was: “That the learned judge failed to
consider the defence put forward by the applicant against the charges levelled
by the complainants.”<o:p></o:p>As a
factual point, that ground is hardly accurate. The appellant led no evidence in
his defence before the magistrate. He was content to rest his case on
submissions alone. These of course, the magistrate considered seriatim and
dismissed. The judge observed that the magistrate did so painstakingly.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When
hearing commenced before us yesterday, counsel for the appellant did not
actually base his contention on this ground. His quarrel with the court below
was founded on one sentence in the judge’s holding. The learned High Court
judge said:<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">“I am
satisfied on the evidence that the magistrate exhaustively and painstakingly
considered the evidence before him. It did not matter that some other judge
would have found the evidence insufficient. Provided the judge did consider the
evidence as a whole and there was some evidence on record upon which he could
commit, that finding by him should not be disturbed. I find that there was some
evidence upon which the magistrate could commit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
submitted that the observation by the judge that the conclusion should not be
disturbed even if some other judge found the evidence insufficient, was a
faulty conception of the legal position and as such appreciation of the matter
informed his consideration of the case, his conclusion was vitiated thereby. We
profoundly disagree. The judge below was not the committing magistrate. The
person who should be satisfied of a case was the committing magistrate. He was
so satisfied. The judge of the High Court on a habeas corpus application had a
limited duty, namely to see whether there was a prima facie case before the
magistrate. If there was, that is sufficient. He would not be entitled to
differ from the magistrate even if he had taken a different view of the
sufficiency of the evidence unless the holding t</main>