IN THE
SUPERIOR COURTS OF THE GAMBIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA
Criminal Case No.: HC/365/19/CR/067/AO
THE STATE............................................................COMPLAINANT
AND
YANKUBA TOURAY......................................ACCUSED
PERSON
CASE CALLED ON 10th
JUNE 2020
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON.
JUSTICE EBRIMA JAITEH
PARTIES: - Accused person –
Present
APPEARANCES:
-
Principals State Counsel A.M.
Yusuf, K. Tah, State Counsel M.B. Sowe and A. A. Saho for the State
-
Counsel A. Sissoho for the
Accused – Present
RULING
The Accused person is charged on a single count of Murder
contrary to section 187 of the Criminal Code, Cap 10, Volume 3, laws of The
Gambia 2009. The particulars of offence alleged is that the accused sometime in
the month of June 1995 at Kololi in the West Coast Region of The Gambia within
the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and with malice aforethought caused
the death of one Ousman Koro Ceesay by beating him with a pestle-like object
and other dangerous weapons thereby committed an offence.
The prosecution called nine (9) witnesses and tendered
exhibits inclusive of an autopsy report. At the end of the prosecution’s case,
the Defence opted and made oral arguments on a submission of no case to answer.
Counsel for the Defence A. Sissoho in his brief argument
submitted that the prosecution had failed to make a prima facie case against
the Accused person to require him to enter his defence. Additionally, Defence
Counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the ingredient of the
offence charged which is the actus reus
of murder that there is no evidence that Ousman Koro Ceesay is dead and no
weapon, stick or knife was tendered into evidence as an exhibit by the
prosecution. It is Defence Counsel’s argument that the actus reus has not been established as required by law and thus
relied on statute and several case laws and argued that the accused should be
acquitted and discharged on a submission of no case to answer.
The Principal State Counsel A. M. Yusuf in responding to
the arguments on the no case submission argued that section 166 of the Criminal
Procedure Code is applicable only to the Subordinate Courts. It is, therefore,
his submission that that provision of section 166 of the Criminal Procedure
Code cannot be invoked in the High Court. The Principal State Counsel Yusuf
urged the court to look at section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is
the proper law to invoke a nocase submission at the High Court. Counsel Yusuf
also argued that the prosecution had indeed established a prima facie case
against the Accused person and relying on several authorities urged the court to
discountenance the submission of no case. Counsel finally urged the court to
call upon the accused person to enter his defence.
In reply on points of law, Defence Counsel argued that
section 208 is a general power of the court and that section 166 of the
Criminal Procedure Code applies both to the High Court and the Subordinate
Courts.
I have carefully listened to the oral arguments on the
issue of no case submission. However, I agree with Principal State Counsel A.
M. Yusuf that Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is under Part V
deals with “procedures in trial before the Subordinate Courts”. It is my
considered opinion that there is only one issue for determination, which is whether
the accused person has a case to answer. In as much as I have looked at
the testimony, and the argument of the defence counsel in details in order to
ensure fairness, I will only limit my comments, my observations, and my
findings to the law as it relates to a no case submission in The Gambia. The
starting point is Part VII of the
Criminal Procedure Code dealing with procedure in trials before the
High Court. Section 208 of the
Criminal Procedure Code provides that:
“Subject
to the provisions of this Code, the practice of the High Court in its criminal
jurisdiction shall be assimilated as nearly as circumstances will admit to the
practice of her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in its criminal jurisdiction
and of Courts of Oyer and Terminer and General Goal Delivery in England”.
By this provision, this court is entitled to
use any procedure applicable in the High Court of Justice in England under
similar circumstances subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Pursuant to this provision, it has been a common practice within this
jurisdiction to make submissions of no case to answer under the circumstances
applicable in England as established by Lord
Chief Justice Parker in the Practice Note issued in that regard by the Queens Bench Division in (1962) 1 ALL ER
448 as follows:
“A
submission that there is no case to answer may properly be made and upheld:
a) When
there has been no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged charge;
or
b) When
the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of
cross examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable court could
convict on it”.
I hereby find and hold that the practice of
submission of no case to answer is known to the High Court in this jurisdiction
and is widely used pursuant to Section
208 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Practice Note of Lord Chief
Justice Parker as applicable in England. The law on no case submission in this
jurisdiction is also govern by Section 238
of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 10:01, Volume III, Revised Laws of The
Gambia 2009 provides thus “when The evidence of the witnesses for the
prosecution has been concluded and the statement or evidence (if any) of the
accused person has been given in evidence, the court, if it considers that
there is no evidence that the accused person or any one of several accused
persons committed the offence, shall, after hearing the counsel for the
prosecution and for the defence, record the finding of not guilty”
(emphasis added). In any event, let me hasten to say that a submission of no
case to answer is also a common law procedure, which may be applicable to some
cases. A no case submission has been defined in the case of IGABELE v THE STATE [2005] 1 NCC on page
61 to mean, “… that there is no evidence on which the court
would convict even if the court believed the evidence of the prosecution…”(Emphasis
added). In the instance case, the prosecution having concluded their evidence
and close the case of the prosecution, the defence argued that the prosecution
has not provided any evidence to sustain the charge that would safely lead to
the conviction of the Accused Person hence their submission of no case to
answer. It is on this basis that this ruling is being read.
Nonetheless, in the instance case, I need not deal with
the credibility or not of the witness adduced by the prosecution or on the
weight of their evidence. The question I have to determine is whether the
evidence produced by the prosecution has been discredited in cross-examination
or whether the evidence adduced is manifestly unreliable that it would not be
safe to convict. It was held in the case of CEESAY v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [1960-1993] GLR on page 111, that
“the
effect of a successful submission of no case was to protect the accused from
going into the witness box where he might be compelled to make damaging
admissions; it might also prevent the prosecution from making good deficiencies
in its own evidence by cross-examining the other witnesses for the
defence. A submission of no case to answer could only be justified if the case
for the prosecution had obviously collapsed when it would be a waste of time of
the court to hear it further. A submission of no case was also a powerful
reinforcement of the right of the accused to silence conferred upon by him by
law…” (Emphasis added). The question is has the prosecution produced
evidence to support an allegation on the offence charged? Has the prosecution
establish a prima facie case against the accused persons. In the case of GODWIN CHIANUGO v STATE [2006] 1CLPR on
page 71 it was held that a prima facie case “…only means that there is a ground
for proceeding…but a prima facie case is not the same as proof which comes
later when the court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not
guilty…and the evidence discloses a prima facie case when it is sufficient to
prove the case against the accused…” (Emphasis added). Similarly, “a
prima facie case is said to exist when there is evidence sufficient enough to
support the allegation made in the absence of further evidence rebutting same…”
(See IGABELE v THE STATE [2005] 1 NCC
on page 64), also in the same case if IGABELE as cited supra has outline when a no case submission
would be held to be where:
1) “There
was no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged offence, and
2) The
evidence adduces has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination.
3) The evidence
is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal can safely convict on
it and, further if, however, a reasonable tribunal can convict on evidence so
far led, there is case for the accused to answer…”(emphasis
added).
The question I ask is that has the prosecution produced evidence to support an allegation on the offence charged and to that I must hasten to answer yes. Without wishing to go into evidence or facts of the case, I believe the evidence adduced by the prosecution is such that it requires some explanation from the Accused person of what actually happened at his house in Kololi on the fateful day in question. I must state clearly that the prosecution has adduced direct and circumstantial evidence before this Honourable Court linking the Accused Person to this case. Therefore, a prima facie case has been made out against the Accused person and the argument on the submission of no case to answer lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The Accused person is now called upon to open his defence.
Comments
Post a Comment