THE REPUBLIC vs. KEVIN DINSDALE GORMAN AND 5 ORS. [2004]DLSC6236

Date	2004-07-07
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. J3/3/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLSC6236

MISS AKUFFO J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

MRS. WOOD J.S.C.

DR. TWUM J.S.C.

DR. DATE-BAH J.S.C.

PROF. OCRAN J.S.C

MR. ANTHONY GYAMBIBY C.S.A. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

MR. THADEUS SORRY FOR 1ST APPELLANT.

MR. ADDO ATUAH FOR 3RD 4TH AND 5TH APPELLANTS.

MR KWABLA SENAU FOR 6TH APPELLANT

[2004]DLSC6236
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<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"><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><h2 align="center" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:115%">KEVIN DINSDALE GORMAN
AND 5 ORS.<o:p></o:p></h2>[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">

CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. J3/3/2004&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: 7TH JULY, 2004<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. ANTHONY GYAMBIBY,
C.S.A. FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>MR. THADEUS SORRY FOR 1ST
APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>MR. ADDO ATUAH FOR 3RD,
4TH AND 5TH APPELLANTS. <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">

MR
KWABLA SENAU FOR 6TH APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Prof.
Modibo Ocran, JSC: <o:p></o:p>This Court gave its ruling on this case on
11th June, 2004 and reserved its Reasons for the Ruling for today, 7th July,
2004. We now proceed to give the reasons for our earlier ruling. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is an appeal against the refusal of
the Court of Appeal to grant an application for bail to the appellants. The six
accused persons were arraigned before the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal on 28
January 2004 on narcotics-related charges based on sections 56 (c), 1(1) and 2
of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions Law), 1990 (PNDC
236). The Tribunal as trial court granted bail on 3rd Februray 2004 to all the
accused on specified conditions. The Attorney-General's Office appealed against
the grant of bail to the Court of Appeal, which delivered a ruling on 3rd March
2004 upholding the appeal and thereby rescinding the grant of bail in respect
of all the accused. This matter came before us on further appeal by all but one
of the accused persons, namely, the 2nd accused. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The grounds of appeal were set out in their
respective Notices of Appeal as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;For
the 1st Accused, that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;" i. The decision by the Court of Appeal
to allow the appeal against the grant of bail to 1st Accused/Appellant was
unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. <o:p></o:p>ii. The decision by the Court of Appeal to
allow the appeal against the grant of bail to 1st Accused/Appellant resulted in
a gross miscarriage of justice to 1st Accused/Appellant, the reason being that
the basis of the appeal before the Court of Appeal and the reasons given by the
said Court for the revocation of the bail granted to 1st Accused/Appellant
warranted, at the very least, a review of the conditions upon which 1st
Accused/Appellant was granted bail and not an outright refusal of same. <o:p></o:p>iii. The Court of Appeal erred in its
interpretation of the applicable provisions of the Criminal Code 1960((Act 30)
as against the relevant provisions of the Constitution 1992 of the Republic of
Ghana on the grant of bail to accused persons, the reason being that it
downplayed the constitutional provisions providing for the pretrial release of
an accused person on bail in favour of the guiding (not mandatory) principles
governing the grant of bail as contained in section 96 of Act 30.<o:p></o:p>" For the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Accused,
that: <o:p></o:p>"3.1.The
judgment of the Court of Appeal rescinding the order for the grant of bail to
the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Accused/Applicants/Respondents/Appellants by the Greater
Accra Regional Tribunal is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard
to the evidence placed before the Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;3.2. The Court of Appeal
erred when it failed to adquately consider the evidence before it that the 3rd,
4th and 5th Accused/Applicants/Respondents/Appellants are international
businessmen who at the material time had fixed places of abode within the
jurisdiction and rather found, contrary to the evidence before the Court, that
they had no fixed places of abode, particularly when the
Republic/Respondent/Appellant/<o:p></o:p>Respondent did not challenge the assertions
of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Accused/Applicants/Respondents/Appellants at the trial
cou</main>