Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 30, 1976
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF ANDOH J.
On 26 November 1976, when this court granted leave to the appellant to appeal against his conviction and sentence of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, I ordered as follows:
"In view of the number of frivolous and vexatious appeals which come to this court, I would grant leave to the appellant to appeal so that in the event of the appeal being dismissed, I would further consider whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to enhance the sentence of the court below and if so whether there is any limitation imposed on the jurisdiction of the appellate court when it decides to enhance the sentence of the lower court."
The facts culminating in this appeal may be summarised as follows: The appellant is reported to have entered the store of the complainant, snatched a piece of wax print valued at ¢30.00 and passed it on to a member of his gang who succeeded in escaping with it without arrest. He was charged with stealing, tried and found guilty. He was then convicted and sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. The conviction is unimpeachable because it is amply supported by the evidence on record. The only legal point which I consider it necessary to delve into is whether the sentence can be enhanced by the appellate court and if so the extent permissible by law.
Section 26 (13) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), spells out quite distinctly the jurisdiction of an appellate court in criminal cases as follows:
"26. (13) Subject to the provisions of this section, an appellate court may in a criminal case—
[p.274]
(a) on appeal from a conviction or acquittal,—
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit and discharge or convict the accused as the case may be or order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction, or commit him for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the finding reduce or increase the sentence; or
(iii) with or without such reduction or increase and with or without altering the finding alter the nature of the sentence; or
(iv) annul the conviction and substitute a special finding to the effect that the accused was guilty of the act or omission charged but was criminally insane so as not to be responsible for his action at the time when he did the act or made the omission and order the accused to be confined as a criminally insane person in mental hospital, prison or other suitable place of safe custody;
(b) on an a
AI Generated Summary
Justice Andoh J delivered a judgment arising from an appeal against a theft conviction and a twelve-month sentence with hard labour imposed by a district court grade II. Granting leave to appeal, he indicated he would consider the appellate courts power to enhance sentences if the appeal were dismissed. The conviction was affirmed as unimpeachable, supported by the evidence that the appellant stole a 30 wax print from the complainants store with the aid of an accomplice. The core legal question concerned appellate sentencing authority under the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372). The court recognized that s.26(13)(a)(ii) allows appellate courts to reduce or increase sentences but held that s.26(16) limits them to impose only sentences the trial court could have imposed. Given the district court grade IIs maxima absent prior convictions (one year or 500 fine), and applying the non-interference principle, the appeal was dismissed and the sentence maintained.