THE REPUBLIC vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS CENTRAL PRISONS {SEKONDI} (RESPONDENT) EXPARTE: STEPHEN ISSAH (APPLICANT) [2019]DLHC7051

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS CENTRAL PRISONS {SEKONDI} (RESPONDENT)... [2019]DLHC7051

Date	2019-02-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E12/17/19
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7051

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.

JOHN MERCER ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

MISS. ADELAIDE K. WOODE. FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC7051
																																						<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>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS CENTRAL PRISONS {SEKONDI}<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE: STEPHEN ISSAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<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">

SUIT
NO. E12/17/19 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH FEBRUARY,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHN
MERCER ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

MISS. ADELAIDE K. WOODE. FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.<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 0in 1.0pt 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>The quest of this application is
simply to determine whether or not the applicant has completed serving his
prison terms as imposed on him upon three separate convictions thereby making
his continued detention unlawful.<o:p></o:p>By an ex parte Habeas Corpus application, notice of which was ordered by this
court to be served on the Director of Prisons as respondent, the applicant
claims his continued detention is wrongful as is incapable of any legal
justification.<o:p></o:p>The agreed facts are that the
applicant was tried and convicted on the 18th October 2012 by the
circuit court, Tarkwa on the charges of unlawful entryand causing harm. He was
sentenced to 3 years and 5 years in prison respectively, which sentences were
to run concurrently.<o:p></o:p>Whilst serving the above sentences,
the applicant was charged with stealing. He was tried, convicted of the offence
on the 25th June 2013, and sentenced to 5 years in prison.<o:p></o:p>The applicant was yet again charged
with unlawful entry and stealing. On the 31st October 2013, he was
convicted of stealing by the Tarkwa circuit court and sentenced to 5 years in
prison.<o:p></o:p>In his affidavit in support, the applicant
claims he has completed serving his prison terms, yet the respondent has
refused to release him. He caused his Lawyer to write to the respondent for his
release yet he still being held. He accordingly prays for an order issuing a
writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum
to issue for his immediate release.<o:p></o:p>The respondent has upon notice of
the application filed an affidavit justifying the continued keeping of the
applicant. The contention is that the applicant has not completed serving the
sentences and that the earliest possible date of the applicant’s discharge from
prison would be 1th October 2022.<o:p></o:p>It is trite that habeas corpus is a remedy only for those
unlawfully detained. The writ is issued if it would result in the restoration
of the applicant’s liberty. See MCNALLY VRS HILL 293 US 131 (1934).<o:p></o:p>Reading his affidavit, it does not
come out clearly how the applicant computes the sentences to come to the
conclusion that he finished serving them. It does appear however that he
computes the terms as running concurrently or anything other than consecutive.
If it had been understood to run consecutively the maximum of the three sentences
would have to be added up. When sentences run concurrently, the convict serves
all of them at the same time. When they run consecutively, he finishes serving
the sentence for one offence before starting the sentence of the other(s).
Consecutive sentences run back to back.<o:p></o:p>The question then is whether the
sentences imposed on the applicant stood to run concurrent or consecutive.<o:p></o:p>Section 301 of the Criminal and
Other Offences (Procedure)Act, Act 30 seems to have the answer readily. It
states:<o:p></o:p>“Where
a person after conviction for a crime is convicted of a different crime, either
before sentence is passed upon him under the first conviction or before the
expiration of that sentence, any sentence which is passed upon him under the
subsequent conviction shall be executed after the expiration of the former
sentence, unless the court directs that it shall be executed concurrently with
the former sentence or any part thereof.”<o:p></o:p>The provision would without doubt
apply to the applicant’s case. He was serving the sentence under the first
conviction when the two subsequent convictions and sentences were exacted.
Therefore, unless the sentencing court had ordered that they should run
concurrent, each sentence would have to expire before another would start,
meaning they run consecutive.<o:p></o:p>The respondent has aptly referred me
to the 1960 Edition of the Prisons Standing Orders and Order number 126 speaks
the language of section 301 of Act 30.<o:p></o:p>It states: <o:p></o:p>“In
the case of a prisoner sentenced to several terms of imprisonment on several
warrants at the same time, or sentenced to a further term or terms of
imprisonment before the expiration of his original sentence, his several
sentences on all the warrants shall likewise be consecutive unless otherwise
ordered by the court; and the aggregate term shall run from the date of the
first warrant…” <o:p></o:p>The overall effect is that the
applicant has not completed serving the full sentence of the aggregate term.
There is therefore a legal justification for his continued incarceration by the
respondent.<o:p></o:p>This court is therefore unable to
issue the writ as sought. <o:p></o:p></main>