GAMELI LAWOE vs. THE REPUBLIC [2020]DLHC10107

Date	2020-11-30
Suit No.	CR/0036/2021
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10107

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE RUBY ARYEETEY

ISAAC AIDOO (For APPLICANT)

WATKINS ADAMAH (ASA) (For REPUBLIC)

[2020]DLHC10107
																																						<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" >GAMELI
LAWOE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT,(CRIMINAL COURT 1), 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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<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">CR/0036/2021&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
30TH NOVEMBER, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>ISAAC AIDOO (For APPLICANT)<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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">WATKINS
ADAMAH (ASA) (For REPUBLIC) <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE RUBY ARYEETEY<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 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:144.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
text-indent:-144.0pt;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>&nbsp;This is an
application for bail pending trial.&nbsp; The
affidavit supporting the application deposed to by the deponent, disclosed that
the Applicant has been charged with the offences of Conspiracy and Murder at
the District Court as shown in Exhibit MA1. <o:p></o:p>Counsel for the
Applicants submitted that accused person will be available to stand trial and
has meaning members of the society to stand surety for him. He also has a fixed
place of abode, is gainfully employed and will not interfere with
investigations. It was also submitted that in an earlier application for bail,
the court gave prosecution 3months to finish investigations as their sole
opposition to that application was that investigation was inconclusive. Since
the three months is up and the applicant having adequately met the
prerequisites under section 98 (6) of Act 30 and case law the court should
exercise its discretion in his favor. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Prosecution
opposed the repeat application for bail pending trial and submitted that the
grant of bail is ultimately at the discretion of the court which discretion
must be exercised according to law. They argued that the reason for the refusal
by the court differently constituted to grant the applicant bail on 3rd
July, 2020 does not translate into an automatic grant of bail after the
expiration of the time given by the court for further investigations to be
conducted. They further argued that the court noted that some cases take longer
period to investigate than others and so it is not enough for the applicant to
simply say that the time given by the court for further investigation to be
conducted is over and so they should be granted bail. Counsel referred to
paragraphs 17 to 22 of their affidavit in opposition which he added reveals
steps taken by the Prosecution to ensure speedy trial of this matter. He stated
that in October, 2020, two accomplices whose names have been sufficiently
provided in these paragraphs were arrested and several body parts found at the
premises of the applicant. Currently, steps have been taken by way of
investigation to have them identified for the purposes of this trial. Thus the
Applicants shrine has been condoned as a crime scene and investigations are
still ongoing. Also given the gravity of the offence, the punishment upon
conviction as well as the overwhelming evidence so far gathered if the
applicant is released on bail he will interfere with ongoing investigations,
especially with his other accomplices on the run and will not appear to stand
trial. They submitted that there has not been unreasonable delay in the trial
of this case and therefore the instant application should be dismissed as the
applicant has not demonstrated that there is any new circumstance for which
reason this court should make a determination in his favour.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Decision<o:p></o:p>A court of competent jurisdiction in granting or
refusing bail though discretionary must be exercised according to law by
complying with section 96 (1) – (6) of Act 30. The factors which should be
taken into consideration when granting bail are the nature of the accusation,
the nature of the evidence supporting the accusation and whether the evidence
is strong as well as the punishment for the sentence. Bail however shall not be
used as a punishment but merely to ensure the attendance of the accused person
in court.<o:p></o:p>Since the 1992 Constitution is the fundamental law
of the land, to the extent that Article 14 (3) and (4) mandates bail for all
offences, one requirement which is apparent is the provision that a person
charged with an offence is entitled to bail if he is not tried “within a
reasonable time”. The applicant’s submission in this instant application is
based on the fact that the Prosecution was given three months to complete
investigations and this has elapsed yet no bill of indictment has been served
on them to indicate that trial will start anytime soon. Apart from that the
accused person have persons of substance to stand as surety and a fixed place
of abode and therefore will appear to stand trial if granted bail. <o:p></o:p>