THE REPUBLIC vs. EUGENE BAFFOE-BONNIE & 4 OTHERS [2018]DLCA16219

Date	2018-12-04
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H3/07/19
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA16219

GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING)

A. LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA

TANKO AMADU JA

GODWIN TAMAKLOE FOR APPELLANT.

EVELYN KEELSON FOR RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLCA16219
																																						<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 <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EUGENE BAFFOE-BONNIE &amp; 4 OTHERS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(2ND ACCUSED/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

CIVIL
APPEAL SUIT NO: H3/07/19&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 4TH DECEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GODWIN TAMAKLOE FOR APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

EVELYN KEELSON FOR RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING), A.
LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA, TANKO AMADU JA<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;GYAESAYOR
JA<o:p></o:p>This is an application for stay of
proceedings of the criminal trial in the High Court involving the 2nd
applicant and 4 others.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The application to stay proceedings was
first heard by the trial judge of the High Court who refused to grant the said
application and has since proceeded to continue with the trial. In his ruling,
the learned judge ruled that the application is not based on national security concerns
as alleged. He also dismissed the contention that the document could not be
tendered for want of discovery.&nbsp; He
referred to the Supreme Court decision per Adinyira JSC in a similar application
involving these same parties in which she said “failure to disclose a material before tendering it in evidence, does
not render the material inadmissible but should result in an adjournment, to
enable the accused to study the evidence or material” <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Paragraph 18 of the affidavit in opposition
which stands unchallenged reads “That in answer
to paragraph 13 of the affidavit in support, the trial judge adjourned the case
to enable the applicant and other accused persons study “exhibit K” in accordance
with the Supreme court decision on the matter”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the view of the trial judge the
real reason for the objection is to get the prosecution to tender the whole of the
dispatch book instead of tendering only the relevant page that the Attorney-General
sought to tender in evidence.&nbsp; To him
tendering the whole book will “occasion the giving of cumulative evidence” and
for that matter exercised his discretion in that matter.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Stay of proceedings when granted
brings a trial to a halt and for that matter there should be exceptional
circumstances to justify the grant of such an application.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the arguments before this court learned
counsel for applicant argued that to avoid a miscarriage of justice the entire
dispatch book should be tendered because it could contain matters which would
operate in their favour.&nbsp; In reply, the
learned Chief State Attorney argued that the only relevant document relating to
this case is what they were seeking to tender and that it would not adversely
affect the case of the applicant. The learned trial judge rightly found the
submission of applicant as speculative.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;We have noticed that the prosecution also
argued that there are several known legal means by which counsel for applicant
can get the whole dispatch book admitted into evidence if he is indeed desirous
of doing so.&nbsp; It is not our duty here to
tell him what to do for he must know or ought to know.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Attorney-General cannot be
compelled by the defence to tender what they do not consider relevant for their
case.&nbsp; The refusal to tender the whole
dispatch book does not to our mind constitute an exceptional circumstance to warrant
the grant of the application to stay the proceedings in the High Court. We
accordingly refuse the application and direct that the hearing in the High
Court should continue. The application is hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p>&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SGD<o:p></o:p>&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; P. K. Gyaesayor <o:p></o:p>&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Justice of
Appeal)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs</main>