In the second place the learned judge erred in law by relying on the English decision in R. v. Clark (supra) since the point in issue was fully covered by a local statute, i.e. section 129 (5) (c) of Act 30; and since the Ghanaian law differs in a material particular from the analogous English law: see the English Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, s. 1 (f) (ii), as interpreted in R. v. Clark (supra); R. v. Hudson (supra) and Selvey v. Director of public Prosecutions (supra), to mention but a few of a host of authorities on the point. The English Act does not contain the following words of our local enactment: “which are not reasonably necessary for the conduct of the defence.” Consequently, the English Act, as judicially interpreted, permits cross-examination of the accused as to his character both when imputations on the character of the prosecutor and his witnesses are cast to show their unreliability as witnesses independently of the evidence given by them; and also when the casting of such imputation is necessary to enable the accused to establish his defence: see Selvey v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1968) 52 Cr.App.R. 443 at pp. 464-465, per Viscount Dilhorne.
AVEGAVI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC [1971] 1 GLR 428 [1971] SLR (CA) 7 · Court of Appeal · 1971 · ANIN JA
Read it in the judgment