Yaw Ngoroh & Anor V. The King (1951)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Admissibility of statements to the police of accused persons taken to the scene
of the crime—One Counsel representing two accused where defences fundamen-
tally opposed to each other.

Facts

The appellants were both convicted of murder. After the two appellants had, on separate occasions, made admissions of knowledge of the crime they were taken to the locus in quo, where they made further incriminating statements. Counsel for the appellants argued that the statements made at the locks were inadmissible and relied on the case of Rex v. Ajege & Kigbo (1).

At the outset of the trial Counsel for the appellants said he wished to consider separate representation of the appellants, as he was in doubt whether he could represent both. The Court adjourned to enable Counsel to consider his position and on the resumed hearing continued to appear for both. At a later stage in the trial, when the second appellant gave evidence-in-chief, he attacked the first appellant by alleging that he struck the fatal blow. Counsel applied for, and was granted leave, to withdraw from the defence of the second appellant. The first appellant then applied for leave to cross-examine the second appellant personally.

Counsel then applied for, and was granted leave, to withdraw from the defence of the first appellant. Thereafter the trial proceeded without Counsel for either appellant.

On the appeal Counsel for the appellants argued that when, as the case proceeded, Counsel found it difficult to represent both appellants, the Court should have stopped the trial in order that separate Counsel could be assigned to the appellants.

Held

Both appellants having already made admissions before the visit to the locus, they were taken there because the first appellant had offered to show, and did show, where a cutlass had been hidden under a fallen palm tree; there was nothing improper in a policeman taking a suspected person to a place to recover an instrument, and their statements at such places were admissible: Rex v. Ajege & Kigbo (1) distinguished.

Although there was substance in the ground that the Court should have stopped the trial for separate Counsel to be assigned, the fact that the trial continued without Counsel had occasioned no substantial miscarriage of justice, and the convictions of both appellants were upheld.

Appeals dismissed.