Johnson Lennan PhD
The first requirement of the rule of Law as painstakingly noted by Lord Bingham is that, the Law must be accessible and so far as possible, intelligible, clear and predictable. And his reasons for these were three but for the purpose of this discussion we will talk about the first , so that we know what we might face a criminal penalty for; and second so we can claim our rights and understand our obligations
Consonant with the principle that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, the prosecution must prove each and every aspect of the offence ‘Beyond reasonable doubt.’ This means that the Jury must not convict unless prosecution has made them sure that all the elements of the offense are present- The Unlawful conduct with or without a designated results, the state of mind and the Defenses(Affirmative and failure of proof)
The fundamental test that runs through the Law is an OBJECTIVE TEST. Men tend to suffer sudden explosions of anger immediately consequent upon the provoking stimulus. Asabke might not have a fair opportunity to pitch his behaviour according to rules.
Thus, the test is whether it would appear to a reasonable/ sober person , having regard to all the circumstances that, the reaction of Asabke whether or not news on Gregory’s arrest reached him, was foreseeable, virtually certain or reacted out of proportion with the threat of arrest , reckless? As humans, of course we react differently to circumstances that interferes with our personal autonomy. Asabke might have ran not because he was guilty but that is how he chose to react to the threat of arrest which to my mind was reasonably foreseeable, some other person may chose to hide, another may chose to report himself to the Police, another may worst of all even chose to commit suicide. And this Objective test is not unknown to the Law. There are cases of binding and persuasive precedents supporting such eventualities . Effectively, this will be left to the jury to decide, based on the direction of the judge. Let us trust the good sense and appearance of independence and impartiality of the Court
In effect , it would be unreasonable if not out of place for any sane person to assume conclusively that, Asabke is guilty owing to the obvious that, Asabke whom the prosecution got to merely know about based on the narration of Gregory on the series of events that had transpired in his(Gregory ) life the previous night to his arrest. Now, let’s read the excerpts below of Gregory’s cross examination :
Q. In your evidence-in-chief of 19th day of November, 2018 you told the court that in the early dawn of 21/5/2015 after the police had arrested you they took you to lead them to the house of Asabke to arrest him. Is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. You further told the court that when the police went to the house of Asabke they came back to say that he was not there. Is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. You continued to tell the court that the father of Asabke came out of the house to say that for the past two days he had not seen Asabke. Is that not so?
A. It is so.
Q. I put it to you that it is not correct that the father of Asabke came out of the house to say that he had not seen Asabke for the past two days.
A. My Lord, it is true that the Old man came out to say that he did not see Asabke for two days in the presence of PW7.
Q. I further put it to you that it is not correct that the father of Asabke ever approached the police on that occasion.
A. What you are saying I disagree with you. I was present.
Q. Did you stay in the same house with your father who is now deceased?
A. Before I built my house I was living with my father. Before my father broke his hip I was staying at Sandema because I was taking care of him and I came back to Bolgatanga.
Q. At the time this case happened you were staying with your father in the same house.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you share the same room with your father?
A. Yes.
Q. In your evidence-in-chief of 19th day of November, 2018 you told the court that in the early dawn of 21/5/2015 after the police had arrested you they took you to lead them to the house of Asabke to arrest him. Is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. You further told the court that when the police went to the house of Asabke they came back to say that he was not there. Is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. You continued to tell the court that the father of Asabke came out of the house to say that for the past two days he had not seen Asabke. Is that not so?
A. It is so.
Q. I put it to you that it is not correct that the father of Asabke came out of the house to say that he had not seen Asabke for the past two days.
A. My Lord, it is true that the Old man came out to say that he did not see Asabke for two days in the presence of PW7.
Q. I further put it to you that it is not correct that the father of Asabke ever approached the police on that occasion.
A. What you are saying I disagree with you. I was present.
Q. Did you stay in the same house with your father who is now deceased?
A. Before I built my house I was living with my father. Before my father broke his hip I was staying at Sandema because I was taking care of him and I came back to Bolgatanga.
Q. At the time this case happened you were staying with your father in the same house.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you share the same room with your father?
A. Yes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.