The Republic Vrs Thompson & Ors [2021] GHASC 169 (17 March 2021)

The Republic Vrs Thompson & Ors [2021] GHASC 169 (17 March 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the particulars of offence in the charge sheet did not meet the constitutional and statutory requirements, as they failed to provide sufficient details of the acts or omissions constituting the offences. The Court affirmed that Article 19(2)(d) requires detailed particulars to enable the accused to prepare a defence, and that the obligation is not satisfied by merely repeating statutory definitions or providing only the result of the alleged offence. The appeal by the prosecution was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision was affirmed.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 169
Parties
Respondent/appellant: The Republic; 1st Accused/appellant/respondent: Ernest Thompson; 2nd Accused/interested Party: John Hagan Mensah; 3rd Accused/interested Party: Juliet Hassana Kramer; 4th Accused: Caleb Kwaku Afaglo; 5th Accused: Peter Hayibor
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Particulars of Offence, Right to Fair Trial, Interpretation of Constitution, Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings, Conspiracy, Causing Financial Loss to the State
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Particulars of Offence Right to Fair Trial Interpretation of Constitution Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings Conspiracy +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Respondent/appellant

Ernest Thompson

1st Accused/appellant/respondent

John Hagan Mensah

2nd Accused/interested Party

Juliet Hassana Kramer

3rd Accused/interested Party

Caleb Kwaku Afaglo

4th Accused

Peter Hayibor

5th Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of offence in the charge sheet met the constitutional and statutory requirements under Article 19(2)(d) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 112 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30)
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing the prosecution to provide further particulars of the charges

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the particulars of offence in the charge sheet did not meet the constitutional and statutory requirements, as they failed to provide sufficient details of the acts or omissions constituting the offences. The Court affirmed that Article 19(2)(d) requires detailed particulars to enable the accused to prepare a defence, and that the obligation is not satisfied by merely repeating statutory definitions or providing only the result of the alleged offence. The appeal by the prosecution was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Prosecution to amend the charge sheet and provide further particulars of the charges as directed by the Court of Appeal.