SELORMEY vs. THE REPUBLIC [2001]DLCA1266

Date	2001-09-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLCA1266

AFREH JA

OMARI-SASU JA

GBADEGBE JA

JOHNNY QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANT.

ANTHONY GYAMBIBY SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[2001]DLCA1266
																																						<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:#00B0F0">SELORMEY<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:#00B0F0">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:#00B0F0">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 144<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 27 SEPTEMBER 2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHNNY
QUASHIE-IDUN 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">

ANTHONY
GYAMBIBY, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

AFREH,
OMARI-SASU AND GBADEGBE JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Gbadegbe JA. <o:p></o:p>Delivered
the first judgment at the invitation of Afreh JA. In the course of the hearing
of certain charges against the appellant herein before the High Court, Accra
the appellant sought to have certain documents, namely a comptact disc and
attachments to exhibit 7 tendered in evidence; to which the prosecution
(hereinafter referred to as the respondent) raised objections resulting in
rulings which are the subject matter of the appeals before us which are in
their nature interlocutory. It is important to observe at this point that in
the course of these proceedings both counsel and the court were unable to
determine with any certitude the time frame provided under the Court of Appeal
Rules, 1997 (CI 19), the rules of this court, the time limit within which a
party who desires to appeal from an interlocutory decision in a criminal matter
may do so. I note in particular that whiles as regards civil matters there is a
time limit provided in rule 9 of CI 19, in the case of criminal matters no such
provision was made. Since a reading of rule 27A of CI 19 as amended by the
Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1998 (CI 21) contemplates that parties who
are aggrieved by interlocutory decisions in criminal matters might appeal, this
court enabled the instant appeal to be proceeded with, the issues raised in our
view bordering on the rights of a citizen to have an unfettered access to the
courts particularly in criminal matters. It is to be observed that whiles this
approach might be said to be a liberal interpretation of the existing rules
applied by analogy to the clear provisions in civil matters, it is preferable
that express provisions be made regarding interlocutory appeals in criminal
cases to guide the court in future cases in order that the right of appeal so
conferred on parties might have a real meaning and substance. Having, in my
view, strayed off course to make these observations, I now pass to consider the
main issues with which we are concerned in this appeal.<o:p></o:p>In
my thinking, a clear examination of the grounds of appeal filed in this matter
on 11 September raise for our determination the following questions:<o:p></o:p>(1)
Whether the refusal of the learned trial judge to admit in evidence the
attachments to exhibit 7 was a rightful exercise of his discretion?<o:p></o:p>(2)
Whether the refusal of the learned trial judge to have admitted in evidence the
compact disc alleged to contain a record of cases, statutes and other materials
was right in the circumstances of the case?<o:p></o:p>(3)
Whether the learned trial judge was right in not having the attachments, which
he refused to admit in evidence marked as such?<o:p></o:p>(4)
Whether the learned trial judge was right in calling</main>