Introduction
In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Ghanaian criminal law, following the common law tradition, recognizes both direct and circumstantial evidence as valid means of establishing criminal liability.
One important doctrine arising from circumstantial evidence is the Doctrine of Last Seen. The doctrine applies where the accused person was the last individual seen with the deceased before his or her death or disappearance. In such circumstances, the court may draw an inference that the accused bears responsibility for the death if he fails to provide a credible explanation.
However, the application of the doctrine must be reconciled with the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This paper examines the doctrine within the context of Ghanaian criminal law, focusing on its legal basis, elements, judicial interpretation, and relevant case law.
Meaning of the Doctrine of Last Seen
The Doctrine of Last Seen is a rule of circumstantial evidence under which a person who was last seen with the deceased is presumed to be responsible for the death if the deceased is later found dead and the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation.
The doctrine rests on the logical inference that the person who last had custody or control over the deceased is in the best position to explain the circumstances surrounding the death.
Courts, however, have consistently held that such inference must be supported by other evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused.
Legal Basis of the Doctrine under Ghanaian Law
Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in Ghanaian legislation, it derives its authority from the general rules governing circumstantial evidence and burden of proof.
The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides the legal framework governing proof in judicial proceedings in Ghana. The Act recognizes the admissibility of circumstantial evidence provided that the evidence is reliable and logically leads to the conclusion sought by the prosecution.
The application of the doctrine must comply with Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which guarantees that a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that although the doctrine allows the court to draw inferences, the ultimate burden of proof always remains on the prosecution.
Elements Required for the Application of the Doctrine
For the doctrine of last seen to apply successfully, the prosecution must establish certain key elements:
Proof that the deceased is dead
The prosecution must first prove that the victim is dead or has disappeared under circumstances suggesting death.
Evidence that the accused was last seen with the deceased
There must be credible evidence that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased before death or disappearance.
A close time gap between last contact and death
The time interval between the accused being seen with the deceased and the discovery of death must be sufficiently short to eliminate the possibility of intervention by another person.
Failure of the accused to provide a credible explanation
If the accused fails to give a reasonable explanation as to what happened to the deceased, the court may infer guilt.
In Sarpong v Republic [1981] GLR 790 (CA). the Court of Appeal emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be strong enough to point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused. The court held that where the evidence leaves room for alternative explanations, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. This principle in my opinion directly affects the application of the doctrine of last seen because mere suspicion is insufficient to secure a conviction.
In Republic v Gyamfi (2007) 13 MLRG 192 the court reaffirmed that criminal convictions based on circumstantial evidence must satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court cautioned against relying solely on suspicion or weak inferences.
In Aning v Republic [1995–96] 1 GLR 289 (SC) the Supreme Court discussed the weight to be attached to circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. The court held that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to ground a conviction where it forms a complete chain of evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused and excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.
The doctrine of last seen is fundamentally based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence involves proof of facts from which a court may infer the existence of other facts.
Courts generally require that circumstantial evidence must:
a. Be cogent and credible
b. Form a complete chain of events
c. Exclude every reasonable possibility except guilt.
d. If the chain of circumstances is broken, the doctrine cannot sustain a conviction.
Criticisms of the Doctrine
Although useful in criminal investigations, the doctrine has attracted criticism.
• Risk of wrongful convictions
Because the doctrine relies heavily on inference, there is a risk that innocent persons may be convicted where evidence is incomplete.
• Possible conflict with the presumption of innocence
Some scholars argue that requiring the accused to explain the death may indirectly shift the burden of proof.
• Over-reliance on circumstantial evidence
Where forensic evidence is lacking, courts may rely excessively on the doctrine.
For this reason, courts often insist on corroborating evidence such as motive, forensic evidence, or confessions.
Importance of the Doctrine in Criminal Justice
Despite criticisms, the doctrine plays an important role in criminal justice.
• Assists in homicide cases
Many murders occur without eyewitnesses. The doctrine helps courts rely on circumstantial evidence.
• Prevents perpetrators from escaping liability
The doctrine ensures that individuals who were last seen with victims cannot avoid accountability without explanation.
• Strengthens criminal investigations
It encourages law enforcement to examine the movements and relationships of suspects with victims.
Safeguards in the Application of the Doctrine
Ghanaian courts have developed safeguards to prevent abuse of the doctrine.These include:
• Requiring corroborative evidence
• Assessing witness credibility
• Considering the time gap between last contact and death
• Giving the accused the benefit of doubt where evidence is weak.
In conclusion, the Doctrine of Last Seen is an important principle in Ghanaian criminal law, particularly in homicide and disappearance cases. Although it is not expressly codified in legislation, it operates within the framework of the Evidence Act, 1975 and the constitutional requirement that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Judicial authorities such as Sarpong v Republic, Republic v Gyamfi, and Aning v Republic demonstrate the courts’ cautious approach in applying the doctrine. While it allows courts to draw logical inferences from circumstantial evidence, it cannot replace the prosecution’s obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the doctrine should always be applied alongside other evidence forming a complete chain pointing irresistibly to the guilt of the accused.
