REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT COURT GRADE 1, KORLE-GONNO, EX PARTE AMPOMAH [1992]DLSC4282

Date	1992-07-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLSC4282

ARCHER CJ

WUAKU JSC

AIKINS JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

NANA AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE APPELLANT.

SAM BADDOO (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1992]DLSC4282
																																						<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>DISTRICT COURT GRADE 1,
KORLE-GONNO, EX PARTE AMPOMAH<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

[1993 - 4] 1 GBR 179 – 210&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: 29 JULY 1992<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NANA
AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SAM
BADDOO (CHIEF 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 1.0pt 0in">

ARCHER
CJ, WUAKU JSC, AIKINS JSC, BAMFORD-ADDO JSC, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>ARCHER
CJ. The late Emmanuel Atta Ampomah was known, before his death, as a
hypertensive and diabetic patient for over two decades and had been on
treatment at various hospitals for both ailments. His state of health was known
to his family and his widow Madam Flora Ampomah, married to the deceased for
over 10 years. On 29th January 1990 the deceased upon admission at the Korle-Bu
Teaching Hospital died. On the same day, the body was sent to the mortuary and
upon information given by a Dr Boateng, a friend of the family, a post-mortem
examination was conducted by the pathologist-in-charge of the mortuary, Dr
Simmons, who did a partial post-mortem by opening the head of the corpse. In
his police statement Dr Simmons stated that:<o:p></o:p>“On opening the skull I found
“bilateral intracerebral haemorrhage with subarachnoid extension” which was
also seen by Dr Boateng, the technician who assisted me and the medical
students present. This finding was consistent with hypertensive heart disease.”<o:p></o:p>One
would have thought that this finding was medically and clinically correct and
the cause of death had been ascertained. However, on 9th February 1990, a
brother of the deceased met Dr Simmons and expressed dissatisfaction with the
latter’s findings because he, the brother, suspected foul play. Dr Simmons
therefore suggested a second post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr
Felix Dodu, a consultant forensic pathologist on 14th February 1990. Dr Dodu
found no marks of violence. He examined the rest of the body namely, the heart,
the pancreas, the liver, the kidneys and the partially digested food in the
stomach. In addition, no common poison was detected in samples taken from the
body.<o:p></o:p>Dr
Dodu could not examine the brain tissue because it had been removed by the
earlier post-mortem examination conducted by Dr Simmons. Dr Dodu concluded that
the deceased suffered hypertensive heart disease and concluded that “the
immediate cause of death was undetermined”. It was this finding by Dr Dodu
which generated the various steps to hold a coroner’s inquest on 10 May 1992 at
the District Court Grade 1, Accra.<o:p></o:p>At
the commencement of the proceedings the District Magistrate as an ex officio
coroner stated as follows:<o:p></o:p>“I have carefully examined the docket
in respect of the case of Re: Mr Emmanuel Atta Ampomah (deceased), and I have
come to the conclusion that the inquest should be held.”<o:p></o:p>At
this stage the coroner had the police docket with all the reports of police
investigation and the two post-mortem reports from Dr Simmons and Dr Dodu. Dr
Simmons’s report covered a partial post-mortem of the skull, that is, the
brain. Dr Dodu’s report covered the rest of the body only; but he had no
opportunity to examine the brain tissue because it had been removed and,
according to Dr Simmons, had been, as usual, flushed away to prevent pungent
smells and stench.<o:p></o:p>Controversy
had arisen over this case simply because Dr Dodu had stated the cause of death
was “undetermined”. It is clear that what the consultant pathologist was saying
was that he could not determine the cause of death from the rest of the body
which he examined. If the expression he used is confined to the rest of the
body, there would appear to be no conflict between his report and that of Dr
Simmons who examined the skull and found the cause of death in the brain. Both
reports were available to the coroner before he assembled the coroner’s court,
and if he had indeed carefully examined the docket, he would have concluded
that an inquest was not necessary. The impression the coroner created was that
he did not examine the docket carefully.<o:p></o:p>Under
section 5(1) of the Coroners Act 1960, the coroner shall hold as soon as
practicable an inquiry under the Act touching the death of a person when he has
reasonable cause to suspect that that person has died:<o:p></o:p>(a) a violent or other unnatural
death; or<o:p></o:p>(b) a death of which the cause is
unknown, or<o:p></o:p>(c) while detained in a prison,
lock-up, lunatic asylum or public institution other than a hospital; or<o:p></o:p>(d) in such place or circumstances as,
in the opinion of the coroner, to make the holding of an inquiry in accordance
with the Act, necessary or desirable.<o:p></o:p>When
the police docket was made available to the coroner, he could not honestly say
that the death was violent or unnatural. He could not also sincerely say that
the cause of death was unknown, because Dr Simmons had made a finding stating
the cause of death and, finally, the circumstances leading to the death of the
deceased did not make an inquest necessary or desirable. Indeed, the coroner
had no reasonable cause to suspect any of the statutory conditions laid down.
The coroner had no absolute discretion in the matter and he was expected to
exercise his discretion judicially, reasonably and fairly.<o:p></o:p>Finally,
I wish to stress that coroners’ inquests are no pantomime shows. They are not
comic plays. They are not tragic operas to be listened to and watched by an audience.
They are solemn and mournful proceedings to determine how a human being came by
his death. These proceedings cause pain and sorrow to relatives and it seems
that inquests should not be held unless they were necessary and desirable.
Inquests should not be regarded as routine matters</main>