Guilty or not? The clash of doctrine in Ghana's courts

Within the criminal law framework in Ghana, the doctrine of last seen plays a vital role, raising a strong inference of guilt against an accused person when they were last seen with the victim before their death, and no reasonable explanation is provided.

However, this doctrine can potentially conflict with the fundamental principle of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This essay will delve deeper into the conflict, examining principles established in the cases of Igbo v State and Gabriel v the State, and propose ways to reconcile them.

The principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, enshrined in Section 11(2), 13(1), 22 of the Evidence Act, 1975, serves as a cornerstone of criminal law. It demands that the prosecution establishes the accused person's guilt to a degree that leaves no rational doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. This standard of proof ensures the protection of the accused person's rights and upholds justice. Notably, the cases of The Republic v. Gyamfi (2007) 13 MLRG 192 and Sarpong v. The Republic (1981) GLR 790 verify the importance of this standard.

Conversely, the doctrine of last seen asserts that when an accused person was last seen with the victim before their death and cannot provide a reasonable explanation, a strong inference of guilt arises. This doctrine is based on the belief that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime and is, therefore, more likely to be the perpetrator.

The conflict between the doctrine of last seen and the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt becomes evident when considering that the former relies heavily on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence often poses issues when attempting to meet the high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Two crucial cases shed light on this conflict: Igbo v State and Gabriel v the State.

In the case of Igbo v State, the accused was convicted solely on the doctrine of last seen. The court determined that as no reasonable explanation was provided for the victim's death, the accused's presence raised a strong inference of guilt. However, this decision might conflict with the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as it solely relied on circumstantial evidence without additional corroborative proof.

Contrarily, in Gabriel v the State, the court reached a different outcome. The accused was seen near the crime scene but presented a strong alibi backed by reliable witnesses. The court found that the doctrine of last seen alone did not meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case exemplifies the potential conflict between the doctrine of last seen and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the necessity of supplementary evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

To overcome the conflict between the doctrine of last seen and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must provide additional corroborative evidence. This evidence may encompass motive, opportunity, forensic evidence, or testimonies from witnesses or experts. By presenting a comprehensive case that incorporates various forms of evidence, the prosecution strengthens its position and minimizes conflicts between the doctrines.

The conflict between the doctrines of last seen and proof beyond reasonable doubt raises concerns about false inferences and potential wrongful convictions. Overreliance on circumstantial evidence without sufficient corroborative proof can lead to incorrect conclusions and miscarriages of justice. Therefore, the prosecution must diligently evaluate the evidence and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt while acknowledging the potential flaws of the doctrine of last seen.

In conclusion, while the doctrine of last seen serves as a valuable inference in criminal cases, it alone may not satisfy the demanding standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conflicts between this doctrine and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt can arise, as evident in the cases of Igbo v State and Gabriel v the State. To mitigate these conflicts, prosecutors must present additional corroborative evidence that strengthens their case. By adopting a comprehensive and balanced approach, justice can be faithfully served, and the risk of false inferences and wrongful convictions can be minimized.