AKROFI KUDOAJI v. REPUBLIC
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU (MS.), J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAYE, J.A.
- DZAMEFE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment with hard labour for conspiracy to rob. The conviction was based on a confession statement that was contested for not meeting the requirements of Section 120 of the Evidence Act NRCD 323 of 1975. The appellant appealed, arguing that the confession was inadmissible and that the sentence was excessively harsh. The court upheld the appeal, finding errors in the admission of the confession statement and lack of corroborative evidence. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the sentence was quashed.
ACQUAYE, J. A.
This judgment is in respect of an appeal lodged against the conviction and sentence of the appellant to 50 years imprisonment with hard labour imposed by a Fast Track High Court in Accra on 17th January 2007.
The appellant was the 5th out of seven persons charged together on the first count with conspiracy to rob contrary to Sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Act 29 of 1960. The first four of the seven accused persons were also charged on the second count with the substantive offence of robbing Gladys Kwao, Rose Narh and Jonathan Narh of 120 million old cedis at Ashaiman on 30th January 2002. After a trial in which the first five accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and knowledge of each other the last two admitted they were approached by one Dada alias Awuley who had by then absconded, to look for people to rob the 5th appellant’s uncle. The trial judge, relying mostly on the confession statements of the accused person convicted all of them and sentenced all the seven charged in count one to 50 years imprisonment with hard labour and the first four, charged in count two, to 60 years imprisonment with hard labour to run concurrently.
Dissatisfied with the judgment the appellant who was the fifth accused charged with conspiracy has appealed on the following grounds.
1. That the trial court erred in law by convicting the appellant exclusively on the confession statement of the appellant.
2. The court wrongfully accepted the confession statement in evidence when the said confession statement did not contain a jurat that the contents of appellant’s statement was read and interpreted to him and he seemed perfectly to have understood it.
3. The trial court failed to consider adequately the defence put up by the appellant.
4. The sentence imposed on the appellant was excessively harsh having regard to all the mitigating factors and circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the appellant argued the first two grounds of appeal together. These grounds are to the effect that the trial judge erred in admitting the appellant’s confession statement into evidence when it did not contain a jurat that it had been read over and interpreted to the appellant which he appeared to understand and convicting him exclusively on the confession statement. Counsel submitted that the trial court failed to take into consideration the mandatory requirement set out in Section 120(3) of the Evidence Act NRCD 323 of 1975 that an independent witn