E. B. K. Sey V. The King (1950)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Nolle prosequi entered by the Crown after information filed—Fresh information subsequently filed on original committal proceedings—Validity of second information challenged on grounds that depositions extinct and fresh committal proceedings necessary.
Facts
The appellant was committed for trial on 14th July, 1949, and an information was filed by the Crown. He was brought up for trial at the October, 1949, Assizes when the Crown entered a nolle prosequi. The appellant was subsequently arraigned on the same charges in May, 1950, on a fresh information based on the orginal depositions.
Counsel for the appellant argued that, upon the entering of a nolle prosequi, not only is the accused discharged in respect of the information for which the nolle prosequi was entered, but that also the depositions on which the accused was committed for trial became, as it were, extinct, and cannot be used again to found a fresh information. Counsel based his arguments on sections 47 and 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 10).
Held
Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that when a nolle prosequi is entered the discharge of an accused person shall not operate as a bar to any subsequent proceedings against him on account of the same facts.
There can be no hardship or prejudice to an accused person in standing his trial at any time on charges based on depositions properly taken according to law, and to hold otherwise would be entirely contrary to the spirit and letter of section 53. When a nolle prosequi has been entered a fresh information can be filed on any charge enquired into on the original preliminary enquiry, without the holding of a fresh preliminary enquiry.
Appeal allowed.
