LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Charge – Precision Required – Test of Whether Accused Misled
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The framing of an accurate and precise charge is the basic desideratum of a valid criminal charge. ... I agree that none of them was misled in anyway by minor discrepancies in the charge on the date of the deceased death and the place his body was found after the heinous crime.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Awopejo & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-2782000(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras E–A.
"The framing of an accurate and precise charge is the basic desideratum of a valid criminal charge. ... I agree that none of them was misled in anyway by minor discrepancies in the charge on the date of the deceased death and the place his body was found after the heinous crime."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
While accurate and precise framing of a charge is essential, the test is whether the accused was misled. Minor discrepancies in date or place are not fatal if the accused understood the case and was not prejudiced. The charge must fairly inform the accused of the offence. Technical precision is not required where the substance is clear. The court examines whether the accused could have prepared a defence. If the accused was not misled, minor variations do not invalidate the charge. The principle balances the need for accuracy with practical realities. The burden is on the accused to show prejudice from the discrepancy. The court may amend the charge if needed.