REPUBLIC VRS. THOMPSON AND OTHERS (J3/05/2020) [2021] GHASC 203 (17 March 2021)

REPUBLIC VRS. THOMPSON AND OTHERS (J3/05/2020) [2021] GHASC 203 (17 March 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the particulars of offence in the charge sheet did not provide sufficient detail of the acts and/or omissions constituting the offences as required by Article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution and Section 112 of Act 30. The Court affirmed that the requirement for particulars is to enable the accused to know the case to meet, and this was not satisfied by merely repeating statutory language without specifying the conduct alleged. The appeal by the prosecution was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's order for further particulars was affirmed.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 203
Parties
Respondent/appellant: The Republic; 1st Accused/respondent/appellant: Ernest Thompson; 2nd Accused/interested Party/amicus Curiae: John Hagan Mensah; 3rd Accused: Juliet Hassana Kramer; 4th Accused: Caleb Kwaku Afaglo; 5th Accused: Peter Hayibor
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 March 2021
Case Number
J3/05/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Particulars of Offence, Right to Fair Trial, Interpretation of Constitution, Charge Sheet Requirements, Disclosure in Criminal Trials
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Particulars of Offence Right to Fair Trial Interpretation of Constitution Charge Sheet Requirements Disclosure in Criminal Trials

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic

Respondent/appellant

Ernest Thompson

1st Accused/respondent/appellant

John Hagan Mensah

2nd Accused/interested Party/amicus Curiae

Juliet Hassana Kramer

3rd Accused

Caleb Kwaku Afaglo

4th Accused

Peter Hayibor

5th Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of offence in the charge sheet met the requirements of 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 prosecution must provide detailed particulars of acts/omissions constituting the offence, beyond the statutory language
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring further particulars in the charge sheet

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the particulars of offence in the charge sheet did not provide sufficient detail of the acts and/or omissions constituting the offences as required by Article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution and Section 112 of Act 30. The Court affirmed that the requirement for particulars is to enable the accused to know the case to meet, and this was not satisfied by merely repeating statutory language without specifying the conduct alleged. The appeal by the prosecution was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's order for further particulars was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Prosecution to amend the charge sheet and provide further particulars of the acts and/or omissions constituting the offences to the accused persons