ALAN WILLIAM HODGSON v. THE REPUBLIC

OWUSU (MS), JSC:

Alan William Hodgson, the Appellant herein, was arraigned before the High Court (Fast Track Division) with five others on narcotic drug related offences under the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, P. N. D. C. L 236.

The Appellant was charged on two counts of engaging in criminal conspiracy to commit an offence relating to Narcotic Drug and possessing Narcotic Drug without lawful authority contrary to sections 56 (c) and 2 respectively of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Law of 1990, P. N. D. C. Law 236.

He pleaded not guilty to both counts, was tried and found guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years I. H. L on both counts. The sentences were however to run concurrently.

Dissatisfied with both the conviction and sentence, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which on 4th day of November 2005 dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence.

Dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, pursuant to leave granted by that Court, has appealed against that Judgment to this court for redress on the following grounds:

i. “That the Court of Appeal did not properly consider the objections raised by

appellant as to the charges brought against appellant.”

ii. “That the Court of Appeal failed to properly evaluate the evidence which

formed the basis for the conviction of Appellant by the trial Court.”

iii. “The dismissal by the Court of Appeal of appellant’s appeal was unreasonable

and occasioned appellant a substantial miscarriage of justice.”

iv. “That the Court of Appeal and the trial Court failed to give adequate and

proper consideration to appellant’s defence.”

v. “That the Court of Appeal ought to have mitigated the sentence imposed on

appeal by the trial Court.”

In short, the Appellant is before this Court because, according to his counsel, there was no evidence to support the conviction and that even where the prosecution tried to link Appellant to the charges for which he was convicted, there was enough evidence to prove that the evidence was completely unreliable because same was either contradictory or that other pieces of evidence adduced at the trial proved the evidence not to be credit worthy.

Counsel submitted that the Appellant is an unfortunate victim of circumstances because his presence in the house of 1st Accused where the narcotic substances were found was fortuitous.

The five grounds set down in the Notice of Appeal were the