ALHAJI MUSTAPHA UMARU v. THE REPUBLIC
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ADJEI J.A (PRESIDING)
- SOWAH (MRS), J.A
- KWOFIE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved an appeal against the sentence of 25 years and 15 years for robbery and conspiracy, respectively, served concurrently from December 16, 2001. The appellant argued the sentence was excessively harsh and expressed remorse. The court found the trial court erred in backdating the sentence to the date of arrest and ruled the sentence must commence from the conviction date, November 1, 2004. The sentence for robbery was reduced from 25 years to 20 years, considering the appellant's time in custody before conviction and other mitigating factors. The court reinforced principles that imprisonment sentences must commence from the date pronounced and that courts must consider and record pre-sentence custody periods.
SOWAH, J.A.
The appellant who was the 2nd accused person [A2] at the trial court was charged along with three others with Conspiracy to commit crime to wit: Robbery and Robbery contrary to sections 23 and 149 respectively of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 Act 29 as amended by Act 646.
They were alleged to have robbed a German national who was the project manager of a German International Construction company at his residence at Nkonya Tepo at gun point on 15th December 2001
After a full trial the High Court Ho, found all the accused persons guilty as charged and duly convicted them on 1st November 2004. In passing sentence the trial court ordered as follows:
“A.1 is sentenced to fifteen years I.H.L. on count one. A.2, A.3 and A.4 are sentenced to twenty-five years each on Count two and fifteen years each on Count one.
A.2, A.3 and A.4 are to serve the twenty-five year term. Sentence to run from 16th December 2001”.
The appellant filed this Notice of Appeal on 23rd December 2014 a full 10 years after his conviction pursuant to leave granted on 9th December 2014. His grounds of appeal are:
i) That the sentence of forty (40) years is excessively harsh taking into consideration circumstances surrounding the case.
ii) That appellant is remorseful and promised not to have a brush with the law again.
iii) That appellant prays that the Honourable Court will temper justice with mercy by reducing the sentence to the barest minimum.
The appeal is thus an appeal against sentence only.
My first comment is on the first ground of appeal. When the appellant states that he was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment, I do not know whether he is being disingenuous or he truly misunderstood the sentence that was passed. As the Judgment appealed is part of the Record from page 163, and as he was represented by counsel at the trial, I am inclined to believe that it is more of the former in a bid to attract sympathy.
If that was the intention it was bound to fail because it is clear on the record that the appellant was never sentenced to 40 years but to 15 years and 25 years in respect of the two counts of Conspiracy and Robbery but to serve only 25 years. In other words the sentences were to run concurrently and not consecutively.
As the trial judge explained after he had heard the pleas of mitigation from the appellants’ counsel and from the other accused persons who were not represented, the accused persons had a pistol which is an offensive weapon, and in such a