Commencement of criminal proceedings, charges, informations and indictments
The exam tests whether you can draft a valid charge and attack a defective one without overstating the consequence of the defect.
The two routes to trial
- Summary trial: commenced by a charge sheet in the District or Circuit Court, supported by the first information and witness statements.
- Indictable trial: a bill of indictment filed in the High Court, ordinarily accompanied by a summary of evidence and witness statements, reached after committal in the District Court.
What a charge must contain
- A statement of the specific offence in ordinary language.
- Such particulars as are necessary to give reasonable information of the nature of the charge: date or date range, place, identity of victim, property and value, and the statutory provision.
- No duplicity: one offence per count unless statute creates a single composite offence.
- No uncertainty or repugnance.
Joinder and amendment
Counts against the same accused may be joined where they arise from the same transaction or are of the same character; accused may be jointly tried where the same offence is alleged. A charge may be amended at any time before judgment provided the amendment does not prejudice the accused; the court may adjourn and permit recall of witnesses.
Worked example
Charge: 'That you, Kwame, on or about sometime in 2022 at Accra, stole a car.' Defects: no date range, no registration or value, no statutory citation. Does that make it void? No. A charge is bad only if it fails to give reasonable information or causes prejudice. The remedy is an application for further particulars or an amendment, not automatic acquittal. If, however, the wording conceals two separate thefts in one count, the court may quash the count or order separate counts.
Traps that cost marks
- Equating a defective charge with a nullity.
- Citing the wrong statutory section; usually curable if it does not mislead.
- Overlooking duplicity because the count reads as a single narrative.
- Forgetting that the right to know the charge in detail is constitutional, not merely a pleading rule.