Criminal Law Flashcards
(12 cards)
APPIANING v. THE REPUBLIC
The appellant, charged with murder under Section 46 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), fatally injured a police corporal during a struggle. The prosecution alleged the appellant struck the deceased with a hammer during an arrest attempt. The appellant claimed the death resulted from an accidental blow during a struggle with officers who failed to produce a warrant. The trial judge excluded defenses of provocation and justification, reasoning that the appellant’s total denial of the offense negated these defenses. The jury convicted him of murder, and he appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, substituting a conviction for manslaughter and imposing a 10-year prison sentence.
Republic v. Attorney-General; Ex parte Quaye Mensah and Another
The applicants were detained under Preventive Custody Orders. The orders cited “national security” and “safety of the person” as grounds for detention. They filed a habeas corpus application, arguing: insufficient Identification, Lack of Grounds, and bad Faith.
The High Court dismissed their application and upon appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, declaring the detention unlawful.
Republic Vrs High Court Exparte Yvonne Brobbey
The Supreme Court invalidated the Interested Party’s civil motion to punish the Applicant for intermeddling under procedural rules (C.I. 47), ruling that intermeddling is a criminal offense under PNDCL 111. The Court held that such offenses must be prosecuted by the Attorney-General and affirmed that procedural rules cannot establish crimes, which are solely determined by statutory law.
Ampofo Vrs Attorney-general
The plaintiff challenged Section 63(d) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (criminalizing refusal to honor a chief’s summons) as unconstitutional, arguing it violated freedom of movement under Article 21(1)(g) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down Section 63(d) for overbreadth, ruling it unjustifiably restricted movement and lacked specificity, but upheld other subsections (a, b, c, e) as sufficiently clear under customary and statutory law. The decision affirmed that while chieftaincy is constitutionally protected, its powers cannot override fundamental rights, urging Parliament to redraft Section 63(d) narrowly to align with constitutional safeguards.
Fair Trail
Core Principles:
Fair Trial Rights: All accused persons are entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time (1)
Presumption of Innocence: Innocent until proven guilty (2c)
Jury Trials Required for serious offenses (2a), with unanimous verdicts for death penalty cases
High Court Trial for treason cases, requiring 3 justices’ unanimous decision (2i)
Key Protections:
Right to be informed of charges in understandable language (2d)
Adequate time/facilities for defense preparation (2e)
Right to self-representation or legal counsel (2f)
Right to examine witnesses and obtain interpreter (2g-h)
Protection against double jeopardy (7), except for treason cases (8)
Ban on ex post facto laws (5) and excessive penalties (6)
Right to trial transcripts within 6 months of judgment (4)
Special Provisions:
Military tribunals exempt from jury requirements (9)
No compelled self-incrimination (10)
Contempt powers preserved for courts (12)
Civil proceedings must also be fair and impartial (13-15)
Treason Definitions (17-18):
Limited to acts of war against Ghana, violent overthrow attempts
Excludes constitutional political activism
Military Justice (19-20):
Separate system authorized but limited for non-active personnel
Legal Basis Requirement (11,21):
Crimes must be defined in written law
Applies to offenses under Ghanaian law
Exceptions (16):
Allows some reverse burdens of proof
Permits parallel military/civil discipline
Martin Kpebu v. Attorney General (48-Hour Rule Case)
Facts:
Martin Kpebu, a legal practitioner, challenged the constitutionality of laws allowing law enforcement agencies to detain individuals beyond 48 hours without being brought before a court. He argued that Article 14(3) of the 1992 Constitution mandates that any arrested person must be presented before a court within 48 hours, and any law permitting extended detention violates fundamental human rights.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kpebu, affirming that any detention beyond 48 hours without judicial oversight is unconstitutional. The court held that law enforcement must strictly comply with the 48-hour rule, and any continued detention beyond this period without court approval is a violation of personal liberty. The decision reinforced constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention and limited police powers in detaining suspects.
Edmund Addo Vs The Republic
Where a person commits an offence against an enactment that is subsequently repealed in the course of a trial, section 34(1) of the interpretation act saves the office-creating law and the trial may proceed as though the law were not repealed.
Stanley v Powell
The defendant, Powell, and the plaintiff, Stanley, were members of a shooting party. During the event, Powell fired his shotgun at a pheasant, but the shot deflected off a tree branch and accidentally hit Stanley, causing injury. Stanley sued Powell for damages. The court held that Powell was not liable because the injury was purely accidental and lacked negligence or intent
Fowler v Lanning
The plaintiff, Fowler, sued the defendant, Lanning, for injuries caused by being shot. However, the plaintiff’s claim did not specify whether the shooting was intentional or negligent. The defendant argued that the claim should be dismissed because it failed to establish a legal basis for liability. The court held that a person is not automatically liable for causing harm unless the injury resulted from either intentional misconduct or negligence. Since the plaintiff failed to specify whether the shooting was deliberate or careless, the case was dismissed.
Bua-Chedid v. Yalley
Facts: In 1940, Miss Wilhemina Williams agreed to sell land to Nancy Yalley, who paid the full price and received a receipt promising a deed. Williams died in 1941 without executing the deed, and her husband, K.A. Taylor, later administered her estate. In 1972, Taylor authorized construction on the land, prompting Yalley to sue for trespass.
Decision: The Court of Appeal upheld Yalley’s damages award, ruling the contract created a constructive trust, binding Taylor as trustee. The majority held Ghana’s merged legal system allowed equitable owners in possession (like Yalley) to sue for trespass, while the dissent argued legal title was required. The decision affirmed equitable rights under enforceable contracts.
Glad v Republic
Facts:
In Glah and Another v. The Republic [1992] 2 GLR 15, the first appellant was involved in long-term sexual relationships with both his mother-in-law and sister-in-law, fathering two children with each. This arrangement lasted peacefully for over seventeen years. The appellants were charged under section 207 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29) for conduct deemed likely to breach the peace.
Holding:
The High Court held that although the conduct was morally questionable under customary law, it occurred in private and did not cause any public disturbance. Therefore, it did not constitute an offence under section 207, and the convictions and sentences were quashed.
Fobih and Another v. Fobih and Another
Professor Dominic Fobih, aged 81, married Mary Nyamekye Oduro, aged 31. This union was contested by his son, nephew, and an alleged estranged former wife, who filed a suit to annul the marriage. They argued that Professor Fobih’s decision to marry was irrational due to his age, recent recovery from a stroke, and the significant age difference between him and his new wife. Additionally, they claimed that his previous marriage to Beatrice Boateng had not been legally dissolved.
GHANAWEB.COM
Holding: The Cape Coast High Court found no justifiable grounds to annul the marriage. The court confirmed that Professor Fobih’s previous marriage to Beatrice Boateng had been legally dissolved, rendering the objections baseless. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the marriage between Professor Fobih and Mary Nyamekye Oduro. Furthermore, the court advised Professor Fobih to forgive his son and nephew for their actions, stating, “We can only ask the 1st Respondent (Prof. Fobih) to forgive his son and nephew, for they know not the power of love.”
DAILYGUIDENETWORK.COM
A total cost of GH¢50,000 was awarded against the challengers.
