ALFRED YANKSON vs. THE REPUBLIC [2007]DLHC7519

Date	2007-08-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO F23/1/05
Citation No.	[2007]DLHC7519

LORDSHIP G. S. SUURBAAREH

A.F. YAKUBU FOR APPLICANT

SALIA-QUDDUS STATE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

[2007]DLHC7519
																																						<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" >ALFRED YANKSON<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO F23/1/05&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: 14TH AUGUST, 2007<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A.F. YAKUBU FOR APPLICANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

&nbsp;SALIA-QUDDUS, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>LORDSHIP
G. S. SUURBAAREH&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
is an application for bail pending appeal. The applicant in this case was
convicted after a full trial by a Circuit Court in which he was acquitted of
some of the offences charged. This being the case, I must bear in mind the
following words of caution in the opening statement of Taylor J (as he then
was) in FYNN V THE REPUBLIC [1971] 2 GLR 433 at 437: <o:p></o:p>"This is an application
for bail pending appeal. In my opinion it is a matter of great moment and of
utmost importance and calls for very anxious and serious consideration. This is
because it involves the proposition that a person who has been found guilty and
convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction and whose sentence of
imprisonment has met been set aside must nevertheless be let loose on the community
instead of his staying in prison to serve sentence which is prima facie
deserved"
(emphasis).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The learned judge in that case made reference
to several cases where convicted persons who were granted bail and whose
appeals were unsuccessful were not sent back to prison as one of the basis for
the concerns raise above. He however came to the conclusion that in some cases
special circumstances may exist warranting the grant of bail to a convicted
person pending appeal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The question of bail pending appeal has vexed
our Courts over a long period. However, what can be decerned as a golden thread
running through most of the cases is that bail can be grated sic in appropriate
cases. The principles upon which bail may be granted pending appeal have been
laid down in several cases. In OWUSU v THE STATE [1967] GLR 435 at 440, CA, the
Court referred to these principles as laid down in R v TUNWASHE [1935] 2 WACA
236 as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"(1) that bail will not be granted
pending an appeal save in exceptional circumstances or where the hearing of the
appeal was likely to be unduly delayed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2) that in dealing with the latter class the
Court will have regard not only to the length of time which must elapse before
the appeal can be heard but also to the length of the sentence to be appealed
from, and further that these two matters will be considered on relation to each
other"<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Court in the Owusu case (supra) said at
page 441: <o:p></o:p>"The principle to be
borne in mind is that a conviction is deemed right until the contrary is proved.
That being the case, grant of bail after conviction is considered an unusual
thing hence it is that it will not be granted unless there are exceptional and
unusual reasons"<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In FYNN v. THE REPUBLIC (supra) Taylor J (as
he then was), who felt that a elaborate decision setting down the principles
upon which bail pending appeal should be gratedsic in view of the erroneous
impression that convicted persons are entitled as of right to bail pending an
appeal and that the High Court has discretion to grant bail indiscriminately in
such application, came out with the following as guidelines for the grant of
bail in such cases at pages 455 to 456:<o:p></o:p>(a) Bail may be granted
pending an appeal if there are exceptional or unusual grounds for the
application;<o:p></o:p>(b) If there is a likelihood
of the appeal succeeding;<o:p></o:p>(c) If it is a case of such
nature where it would be of assistance for the preparation of a real case for
appeal that the appellant should be free to confer with his counsel and prepare
his appeal;<o:p></o:p>(d) If having regard to the
sentence there is going to be a considerable delay either in preparing the
record of appeal or because of the long vacation and in consequence the hearing
of the appeal is likely to be unduly delayed resulting in the appellant serving
the whole or substantial portion of his sentence.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In view of the fact that vacation judges do
not now deal only with special cases, the portion of the last ground relating
to long vacation is no longer a good ground for admitting a convicted person to
bail. Also see the case of FYNN (supra) at 454.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;From the affidavits in support of the motion,
it is being alleged that the conviction was wrong in law having regard to the
fact that the applicant was acquitted on two other counts of conspiracy to
steal and fraud by agent and that the appeal therefore has bright prospects of
success. This was countered by the Respondent who deposed that the various
charges were independent of each other and that the mere fact that the
applicant was acquitted on other contssic did not mean that he could not
legally be convicted of the offence of falsification of accounts. The
respondent's in reaction to the submission that the appeal has bright chances
of success submits that the appel</main>