<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>TAYLOR J.</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The four persons before me have been committed to this court for sentence under the provisions of the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963 (Act 192). When the case was called on 31 October 1975 counsel for the Republic, Mr. Poku Kankam, assistant state attorney, sought to submit that the convicts were caught by the provisions of the Act and so the court should exercise its powers under the Act and sentence them peremptorily to the terms of imprisonment provided for under the Act. I drew his attention to the fact that this would seem to be undesirable and that under the Act an inquiry should be held. He was clearly very unhappy as he was anxious that the case be dealt with expeditiously. I ruled then as follows:</p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em>&quot;This case will be adjourned for one week for the Republic to produce evidence to show that in the circumstance of this case and having regard to the criminal proclivities of the convicted persons they should be sentenced to terms of imprisonment beyond the jurisd…</em></strong></p></blockquote>