THE LAW AND I

A COURT SHOULD NOT DETERMINE A SUBSTANTIVE SUIT IN ITS RULING ON A TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL CHARLES v. FRN (2018) LPELR-43922(CA)   PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE   INTRODUCTION EKANEM, J.C.A. in the Appeal at hand explained the need for a trial-within-trial procedure as follows: “The need for a trial-within-trial arises when at the point of tendering the extra-judicial confession of an accused person, the defence objects to its admissibility on the ground that it was not obtained voluntarily. The trial of the substantive charge is put on hold for the sole purpose of determining the voluntariness of the making of the confessional statement and hence its admissibility or otherwise.” On whether a Court may, at the trial-within-trial stage, delve into the substantive suit, the learned Justice said “The law is that a Court must be cautious in its ruling at an interlocutory stage not to make any pronouncement or observation on the facts which might appear ...

UNDERSTANDING THE ACT OF USING CUFFS AND FORCE IN EFFECTING ARRESTS. The CRIMINAL CODE: SECTION 271 States: When a peace officer or police officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, a person for an offence which is a felony, and is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, and the person sought to be arrested takes to flight in order to avoid arrest, it is lawful for the peace officer or police officer and for any person lawfully assisting him, to use such force as may be reasonably necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought to be arrested, and, if the offence is such that the offender may be punished with death or with imprisonment for seven years or more, may kill him if he cannot by any means otherwise be arrested. It is true that Police officers make Arrests, but how true is it that they must cuff up these persons they want to arrest? Now, 271 has made it an option to forcefully arrest an accused person, but it has also given the c...