ADINKRA KOFI AGYEMAN @ GYAMFI v. THE REPUBLIC
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi (Presiding), JA
- Gertrude Torkornoo, (Mrs.), JA
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.), JA
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, convicted by a jury for causing harm with an offensive weapon and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the appeal on the conviction but found merit in his argument that the trial judge failed to consider the period he spent in lawful custody before sentencing, thus reducing the sentence to 22 years and 7 months. Key legal principles discussed included the discretion of trial judges in sentencing, the need to consider pre-trial custody, and the factors influencing the length of sentences. The applicable law areas were Criminal Law and Procedure, and Constitutional Law.
AYEBI, JA 1. On 4th March 2004, the appellant was indicted before the High Court, Kumasi on charge of causing harm by the use of offensive weapon contrary to section 70 of Act 29 of 1960.
The particulars state that on 20th day of May 2002 at Akropong in the Ashanti Region, the appellant did cause harm to Victoria Adjinku by pouring a highly corrosive liquid on her head.
2. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the trial, the prosecution called seven witnesses including the victim Victoria Adjinku.
The appellant gave evidence but called no witness.
The trial judge then summed up the evidence and the applicable law to the jury.
By a majority of 6 to 1, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of the charge against the appellant.
On 19th August 2004, the trial judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment with hard labour.
3. Pursuant to the leave of this court granted in December 2011, the appellant launched this appeal against both conviction and sentence.
The grounds are that: (i) The sentence is too harsh and excessive. (ii) The verdict cannot be supported by the law. (iii) The sentence be drastically reduced or in the alternative a fine be imposed.
4. The appellant however in his written submission abandoned ground (ii) of the petition of appeal.
The effect is that the appellant accepts that his conviction is supported by the evidence adduced by the prosecution against him.
In other words, the prosecution had proved the charge of causing harm by the use of offensive weapon beyond reasonable doubt against him.
The ground (ii) of the appeal is therefore dismissed.
The complaint of the appellant in this appeal now is that the sentence of 25 years IHL is excessive and pleads for reduction.
5. The law is that sentencing is a matter entirely within the discretion of the trial judge especially where the minimum and the maximum sentence for an offence is not fixed by statute.
Another principle of law which the court or judge takes into consideration in sentencing is that while the sentence must be commensurate with the gravity of the crime and revulsion which law-abiding citizens felt towards the crime committed, mitigating and aggravating circumstances must be considered in determining the length of the sentence.
6. Therefore in order to determine whether or not the trial judge is justified in imposing the sentence of 25 years IHL or the sentence is commensurate with the gravity of the crime committed,