Retrial in Ghana case law.

In the second place, a declaration that criminal proceedings are null and void necessarily means that the charge is good but that the court that purported to try it is void of jurisdiction.

HASSAN v. THE STATE [1962] 2 GLR 150 [1962] SLR (SC) 53 · Supreme Court · 1962 · OLLENNU JSC

In the present case the charges disclose no offence; but the appellant was properly arraigned on it before a court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded to that charge, and trial proceeded; there was no defect in the proceedings; therefore the sentence upon him—if not quashed on appeal — would be a good return to a writ of habeas corpus brought in respect of imprisonment upon the said sentence, it being a sentence passed upon an indictment found against the appellant by a court of competent jurisdiction. If the trial court had been void of jurisdiction, the sentence would be illegal and cannot be a good return to a writ of habeas corpus because the conviction is void ab initio and does not create a necessity for it to be set aside: it is void of effect. Again, there is no material irregularity in the proceedings as to make the trial amount to a mistrial which, like absence of jurisdiction, would have justified the exercise of the powers given to the court by the Courts Act, 1960, s. 16 (5) to order a re-trial. The charge was never amended, it remained bad up to the determination of the appeal at which time it had become too late to amend it. In such circumstances it will be against all principles of justice for this court to order a re-trial of the appellant upon an offence which does not exist.

HASSAN v. THE STATE [1962] 2 GLR 150 [1962] SLR (SC) 53 · Supreme Court · 1962 · OLLENNU JSC