GABRIEL JOANNE vs. THE REPUBLIC [2011]DLSC2591

Date	2011-04-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J3/3/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC2591

ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC (PRESIDING)

ROSE OWUSU JSC

DOTSE JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AUGUSTINE OBOUR FOR THE APPELLANT

K. ASIAMAH-SAMPONG (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2011]DLSC2591
																																						<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" >GABRIEL
JOANNE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J3/3/2011&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
18TH
APRIL, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&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; <o:p></o:p>AUGUSTINE
OBOUR 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">

K.
ASIAMAH-SAMPONG (PRINCIPAL 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">

ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC (PRESIDING), ROSE OWUSU JSC,
DOTSE JSC, ANIN YEBOAH JSC, GBADEGBE &nbsp;JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ADINYIRA
(MRS.) JSC:<o:p></o:p>I
have the privilege of reading beforehand the opinion of my eminent sister
Justice Owusu and I agree with her conclusion that the appeal is without merit.<o:p></o:p>I
also had the opportunity to read the dissenting opinion of my esteemed brother
Justice Dotse which turned on ground (b) of the appeal. I wish his permission
make some comments in relation to that ground.<o:p></o:p>Ground
(b):<o:p></o:p>‘’The
Court of Appeal erred when it held that the trial High Court was right in
accepting the plea of the appellant in the absence of her counsel without
explaining the consequences to the appellant.’ <o:p></o:p>His
Lordship discussed Articles 14 (2) and 19 (2) (f) of the 1992 Constitution in
relation to this ground of appeal.<o:p></o:p>Article
14 (2) provides that:<o:p></o:p>“14(2)
a person, who is arrested, restricted or detained, shall be informed
immediately in a language that he understands of the reasons of his arrest and
detention and of his right to a lawyer of his choice.”<o:p></o:p>I
do agree with my brother Justice Dotse that our Courts must observe best
practices in the administration of justice especially when it affects the
liberty of the individual. It is fair to say that the best practice as
envisaged in the Miranda rights referred to by Justice Dotse and what is called
the Judges Rules in the UK have been applied and observed in the administration
of criminal justice in this country. It is indeed a standard procedure and
requirement. It is trite law that any breach of these rules in the course of
the arrest detention and interrogation by the police or any arresting officer
or enquiry renders any confession statement given by a suspect or any evidence
obtained in the process, inadmissible at a trial. <o:p></o:p>Article
14 (2) reflects these values that seeks to protect personal liberty. However
this provision is with all due respect not applicable in this instant case as
the appellant’s complaint is that the judge erred in accepting the plea of the
appellant in the absence of her lawyer. <o:p></o:p>The
relevant article is rather Article 19 (2) (f) that provides:<o:p></o:p>(2)
A person charged with a criminal offence shall<o:p></o:p>(f)&nbsp; be permitted to defend himself before the
court in person or by a lawyer of his choice.<o:p></o:p>An
accused person is vested under this article with the right to defend herself or
by a lawyer of his choice. This Court in a unanimous decision in the case of The Republic v. High Court (Fast Track
Division) Accra: Ex parte Tsatsu Tsikata [2007-2008] SCGLR 1200 had the
occasion to define the phrase “a lawyer of his choice”.<o:p></o:p>The
relevant facts as it appears in the headnotes of the law report are that the
applicant Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata was the accused person in a criminal matter
pending before an Accra High Court (Fast Track Division). The trial court fixed
18 June 2008 for judgment. On 10 June 2008 the applicant caused a motion to be
filed on his behalf to adduce fresh evidence. According to the applicant,
accompanying the motion paper and supporting affidavit was a letter addressed
to the Registrar of the Court, informing him that his counsel would be out of
the jurisdiction on 12 June 2008, and therefore reque</main>