Okyere v Republic 1972 1 GLR 99
Material Facts:
The present case is an application for bail pending appeal. The applicants were found guilty of conspiracy to steal, among others. At the trial court, each applicant was invited to make a statement in response to their charges, but each refused. In considering the case of the defence, the trial judge said:
The court is of the view that even though an accused person is not bound to make a statement when he is charged with an offence or offences of the like we have here, but where in a case like this where each of the accused persons is literate and he could briefly write a statement denying the allegation being levelled against him, the court will be entitled to comment on the silence kept by the accused especially where the prosecution present such a strong case and where the accused person, as here fails to impress the court as a truthful witness. The court here holds the view that all that each of the accused persons told the court is an afterthought.
Issue:
Whether or not the applicants are entitled to bail pending appeal.
Holding:
The appellants are entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi:
A court will grant bail pending appeal if it is satisfied that the conviction is prima facie erroneous either in law or in fact and that there will be a miscarriage of justice if bail is refused. In Article 20 (10) of the 1969 Constitution , it is provided that “No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial.” In commenting on the essence of this provision, Hayfron-Benjamin J. said:
This right, encompassing as it does, the right against self-incrimination, is like all the other fundamental rights important and far-reaching. Although it originated from England as a common-law privilege, several constitutions including that of Ghana, have made it a constitutional right, and clothed it with the same status as other rights, like freedom of religion, and it can no longer be considered as a mere privilege even though usually referred to as such. The Supreme Court of the United States describes this right as “one of the nation’s most cherished principles.” It is no mere rule of evidence or procedure, it is a fundamental principle of liberty and justice.
Further, the right requires that the accused is not to be affected by comments, adverse or otherwise, on his failure or refusal to speak by the bench during his trial. In addition, the right prevents a trial judge from inferring guilt from the exercise by an accused person of his constitutional right to keep silent.
Once the right against self-incrimination as explained above has been breached, the breach amounts to a miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the trial judge commented on the silence of the applicants, and it is probable that the comment was in breach of their right against self-incrimination. The application for bail pending appeal is hereby granted.
Principles in Case: