PRACTICE NOTE: REPUBLIC v. KWAMI AND OTHERS [1968] GLR 1008
13 November 1968 · FRANCOIS J · ≈ 2 min read
[1968] SLR (HC) 72Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
DIVISION: HIGH COURT, HO
DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 1968
BEFORE: FRANCOIS J.
COUNSEL
Djabatey, State Attorney, for the appellant.
Akuaku for Doku for the respondents.
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.
The short point in this appeal is whether the magistrate was right to stop further hearing of the criminal trial and acquit the accused when he was satisfied that the conflicts in the prosecution’s evidence were of such magnitude that no conviction could lie. It was urged by the learned counsel for the State that the magistrate was only authorised to discharge the accused if the prosecution had not concluded its evidence, an acquittal being possible only after the entire prosecution case had been made.
I am satisfied that the point has been well taken. Paragraph 85 (2) of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), empowers the magistrate to dismiss the charge and not to acquit an accused. By section 59 (1) (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), an acquittal is only possible after the close of the prosecution’s case.
The purported exercise of a jurisdiction under paragraph 85 (2) of N.L.C.D. 84 to acquit the accused was therefore erroneous and on that ground the appeal succeeds. The state attorney has however given an undertaking that the accused persons will be in no jeopardy of further molestation by the police. I trust that positive steps will be taken to honour this undertaking, as I hold that the magistrate erred not on the merits but on a purely technical issue.
DECISION
Appeal allowed.
L.F.A.
