Court: Court of Appeal
Year:
Principle(s): 1. Evidence obtained in breach of a constitutionally guaranteed right is not admissible (however, this position has been modified by the Supreme Court in Raphael Cubagee v. Asare and Others [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)). 2. Where a party fails to object to the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the law at the trial court, he may raise the objection on appeal.
Court: High Court
Year:
Principle(s): Evidence obtained in breach of a constitutionally guaranteed right is not admissible (however, this position has been modified by the Supreme Court in Raphael Cubagee v. Asare and Others [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)). Where a party fails to object to the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the law at the trial court, he may raise the objection on appeal.
Court: Supreme Court
Year:
Principle(s): 1. Courts have the discretion to exclude or admit evidence obtained in violation of a human right. 2. The courts should, however, exclude evidence obtained in violation of a right if it comes to the conclusion that the admission of such evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or affect the fairness of the proceedings. 3. In criminal cases where the crime is of a grievous nature, it will bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the court excluded evidence in violation of a right. 4. In civil case, it will equally bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the court admits evidence obtained by a litigant who deliberately violates the rights of others in obtaining his evidence.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2003-2004
Principle(s): 1. The constitutional presumption of innocence embedded in Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution does not import an automatic right to bail. 2. The constitutional duty of the court under Article 14(4) of the Constitution, to grant bail to the accused if he is not tried within a reasonable time, is applicable irrespective of the nature of the accusation or the severity of the punishment upon conviction. 3. The constitutional presumption of grant of bail in Article 14 and 19(2)(c) is rebuttable, and is in fact rebutted by a statutory provision that expressly disallows bail, such as the circumstances outlined in Section 96(7) of Act 30. 4. The provisions in Act 30 are only valid if consistent with the 1992 Constitution. 5. The rights of the accused must be balanced with the legitimate interests of the community
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2015
Principle(s): 1. In imposing a sentence, the court should take into account the period spent in lawful custody before the conclusion of the trial. 2. The face of the record must explicitly or implicitly show that the court complied with Article 14 (6) of the 1992 Constitution. 3. It is better for the court to expressly state its compliance with Article 14 (6).
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1999-2000
Principle(s): 1. In imposing a sentence, the court should take into account the period spent in lawful custody. 2. It is desirable for the court to expressly state the period spent in lawful custody has been taken into account in imposing a sentence. However, failing to expressly state this is not fatal. 3. Where an enactment provides for the minimum sentence for an offence, time spent in lawful custody cannot be used to impose a sentence which is lower than the minimum sentence provided by the enactment. 4. A sentence cannot be imposed retrospectively.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2015
Principle(s): 1. The award of compensation under Article 14(7) is not automatic upon the acquittal of a person; it is discretionary. 2. The discretion should be guided by principles such as the innocence of the acquitted person, the period he spent in lawful custody, the manner the prosecution was conducted, among others.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1999-2000
Principle(s): A person can be tried in his absence if he fails to show up after he has been notified of the charges against him.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1972
Principle(s): 1. An accused person has a right against self-incrimination, which can be exercised by remaining silent. This is currently in Article 19(10) of the 1992 Constitution. 2. The court cannot infer the guilt of an accused person from his exercise of his right against self-incrimination. 3. When an accused exercises his right against self-incrimination by remaining silent, he is not to be affected by comments from the bench, adverse or otherwise, on his failure or refusal to speak.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2004
Principle(s): 1. Article 19(11) merely outlawed common law and customary law crimes that have not been preserved in statutory law. 2. Failing to define the words in an offence does not mean the offence is not defined in a written law.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2001-2002
Principle(s): 1. Natural justice consists of the twin rules of audi alterem partem and the nemo judex in causa sua. 2. The audi alterem partem rule requires that the accused person be given a fair hearing and notice of the actual charges against him and be given the opportunity to present his defence. 3. The nemo judex in causa sua rule states that “No man should be a judge in his own cause. This rule is designed to eliminate bias and to ensure fairness in the hearing of a case against an alleged offending persons facing a disciplinary inquiry. 4. An adjudicating authority shall be independent, impartial and any case brought before it shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time 5. A decision that violates the rules of natural justice is void.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2019
Principle(s): 1. A person who is arrested or detained shall be brought before court within forty-eight hours after the arrest, restriction or detention or be released conditionally or unconditionally. 2. Forty-eight hours means exactly forty-eight hours.
Court: Supreme Court
Year:
Principle(s): 1. The right to personal liberty in Article 14 primarily deals with the constitutional or unconstitutional restrictions on the movement of the individual freely in a democratic state. 2. Like other rights, the right to personal liberty is not absolute and is subject to the respect for the rights of others, and secondly, the public interest.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2018
Principle(s): Interpretation of Article 19(2)(e) and (g); Meaning of adequate facilities and facilities to examine; Duty of prosecution to disclose all relevant materials to defence; Scope of the duty of prosecution to discuss and effect of non-disclosure; essence of the right to a fair trial.