THE REPUBLIC vs. ERNEST THOMPSON, JOHN HAGAN MENSAH, JULIET HASSANA KRAMER, CALEB KWAKU AFAGLO AND PETER HAYIBOR [2021]DLSC10174

THE REPUBLIC vs. ERNEST THOMPSON, JOHN HAGAN MENSAH, JULIET HASSANA KRAMER, CAL... [2021]DLSC10174

Date	2021-03-17
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. J3/05/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10174

APPAU JSC (PRESIDING)

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

YVONNE ATAKORA-OBUOBISA (DIRECTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.)

SAMUEL CUDJOE ESQ. (FOR THE 1ST ACCUSED/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.) MUJEEB RAHMAN AHMED ESQ. (FOR THE 2ND ACCUSED/INTERESTED PARTY/AMICUS CURIA.)

THADDEUS SORY ESQ. (FOR THE 3RD ACCUSED/INTERESTED PARTY/AMICUS CURIA.)

[2021]DLSC10174
																																						<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/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ERNEST
THOMPSON, JOHN HAGAN MENSAH, JULIET HASSANA KRAMER, CALEB KWAKU AFAGLO AND
PETER HAYIBOR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(ACCUSED/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, 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">CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. J3/05/2020&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:
17TH MARCH, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>YVONNE
ATAKORA-OBUOBISA (DIRECTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.)<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL CUDJOE
ESQ. (FOR THE 1ST ACCUSED/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.)<o:p></o:p>MUJEEB RAHMAN
AHMED ESQ. (FOR THE 2ND ACCUSED/INTERESTED PARTY/AMICUS CURIA.) <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">THADDEUS
SORY ESQ. (FOR THE 3RD ACCUSED/INTERESTED PARTY/AMICUS CURIA.) <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>APPAU JSC (PRESIDING), DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC,
TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC, AMADU JSC<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-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;tab-stops:center 234.0pt;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;AMADU JSC:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The key question
for determination in this appeal is, whether the offences for which the
Respondent was arraigned before the High Court, satisfy the constitutional
requirements of article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution and the relevant law
relating to preferring charges against accused persons. In the exercise of this
Court’s appellate jurisdiction which has been invoked in the instant
proceedings by the Prosecution, the Court has to determine which of the two
lower courts had properly applied the constitutional provisions just referred
to, as well as the relevant law, to the facts on record.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The appeal record
discloses that, whereas the Learned Trial Judge found and held contrary to the
contention of the Respondent that the offences for which he was arraigned
before the High Court, as set out in the charge sheet, satisfied the necessary
details and/or particulars required by the constitutional provisions of article
19(2)(d) of the Constitution and the relevant law and accordingly well laid,
the majority of the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal held otherwise.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1">(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In other words,
while the Trial High Court is of the view that the offences set out in the
Charge Sheet and in respect of which the Respondent was arraigned before the
High Court, contain the necessary details and/or particulars in order for the
Respondent to appreciate the nature and consequences of the offences for which
he was charged, the majority of the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal
held to the contrary.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1">(4)<s</main>