Appeal Court.
12 N ovember1934. Case stated by
Supreme Court
Rules of
His Majesty's Judges
governing questions to prisoners
by Police Officers-Local
variation of Rule 8 to
embrace illiterate persons.
A statement mentioning the other
accused was made by one of the
accused to a Police Inspector.
This was subsequently read out
to him by the Inspector in the
presence of two other accused.
These two accused were not
cautioned but said that the
statement was correct. It was
subsequently read over to yet
others of the accused who were
mentioned in, it and they said
nothing. The trial Judge held
the statement made by the one
accused was inadmissible against
the other accused but sought the
opinion of the Court thereon.
Held: Ruling of trial Judge
affirmed. and Rule 8 to be" read
with proviso.
I vor Brace
for Crown.
Other parties not represented
The following judgment was
delivered:-
DEANE, C .• T., GOLD COAST.
'}'his is a case stated by the
learned Chief Justice for the
opinion of the \Vest African
Court of Appeal.
In so far as this particular
trial is concerned the questions
asked are academic since the
evidence to which they relate
was rejected.
The relevant facts are 'as
follows. A statement was made by
one of the accused to a police
inspector. This was subsequently
read over by the inspector in
the presence of two other
accused. Those two were not
cautioned but said that the
statement was correct. It was
subsequently read over to others
of the accused who were
mentioned in it and they said
nothing.,
The learned Chief Justice
pointed out that the procedure
adopted was contrary to rule 8
of the rules approved by His
Majesty's Judges as applicable
to such matters, and the Crown
Counsel withdrew the document.
The rule in question is to be
found at p. 406 of Archbold 28th
Erlition and reads as follows:-
" When two or more persons are
charged with the same offence
and statements are taken
separately from the persons
charged, the police should not
read these statements to the
other persons charged, but each
of such persons should be
furnished by the police with a
copy of such statements, and
nothing should be said or done
by the police to invite a reply.
Atose If the person charged
desires to make a statement in
reply the usual caution should
be administered."
The questions upon which our
opinion is desired are as
follows: -
I. Did I, the presiding Judge,
in ruling that the statement
made by ninth accused, and
subsequently read over to
certain others of the accused,
was not admissible in evidence
against those other accused,
give a correct decision in point
of law?
II. How, if at all, should rule
8 (already referred to) be
modified to suit local
conditions where the majority of
accused persons are illiterate?
As to the first question we need
say no more than that we think
the learned Chief Justice's
ruling was correct inasmuch as
the procedure adopted was
clearly in conflict with rule 8.
On the second question it is
necessary to consider the
objects with which the rule was
framed. There are clearly
two-first, that an accused
person should have notice of a
statement made by a co-accused
in which he is implicated;
second, that such a statement
should not be used as a means of
entrapping another accused into
an unconsidered or hasty
admission.
Now it is obvious that the first
of these objects would not be
attained by simply handing an
illiterate a copy of a statement
which has been made. It must
obviously be read to him. But if
this is done by the
investigating officer the second
object will obviously be
imperilled.
We think that in order to
obviate these difficulties the
following proviso should be
added to the rule in question:
-Provided that when the person
charged is an illiterate the
statement may be read over or
interpreted to him apart by some
person other than a policeman.
Anything said to such reader by
the person charged when the
statement is read shall not be
admissible in evidence against
him, but if, after the statement
has been so read, he shall be
desirous of making a statement
to the police in reply, such
statement shall be taken only
after the usual caution has been
administered.