R. v. Martin s/o Stanslaus & 3 Ors. Crim. Sessions 131-M-71; 31/12/71; Makame J.

 

R. v. Martin s/o Stanslaus & 3 Ors. Crim. Sessions 131-M-71; 31/12/71; Makame J.

The 1^st accused was one of 4 persons charged with murder. He applied for bail pending trial on the ground that (a) he had been in custody over a year (b) he is a former Senior Police Officer with a fixed residence and reliable sureties (c) he had had a knee operation and it would be beneficial to his health if he were allowed bail.

            Held: (1) “The High Court has power to grant bail even in a case of murder [by virtue of] Subsection (3) of section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code.” (2) “In a case of murder bail will be allowed only in exceptional and most unusual circumstances.” (3) “One year in remand prison is a distressingly long time but because this unfortunate feature is rather common and because so may factors are contributive to such delays, this court will be opening the flood-gates if it allowed the application on that ground.” (4) “Having a fixed residence and substantial sureties is a persuasive factor but against this are posed two things: first, is the possible punishment the offence attracts, which may tempt even the most honest and solid citizen to flee, and secondly, the implication that accused persons of straw would be at a clear disadvantage because of their lack of effluence ….” (5)”I would recommend to the prison authorities that the accused’s liberty be not curtailed more than is necessary and that he should be given every reasonable opportunity to exercise his knee …..” (6)The application was refused.