asamoah gyan v. the republic
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- 1. ADUAMA OSEI, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- 2. DZAMEFE, J.A.
- 3. WELBOURNE (MRS), J.A.
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a 27-year sentence for robbery. The Court of Appeal found the sentence harsh and excessive, considering factors such as the Appellant being a first-time offender, the retrieval of stolen property, and the absence of injury to the victim. The Court emphasized the importance of considering both the crime and the criminal in sentencing, and the need for judicial discretion to be exercised fairly. The sentence was reduced to 15 years, the minimum for robbery with an offensive weapon. The case highlights key principles in criminal sentencing, including the consideration of mitigating factors and the proper commencement of imprisonment sentences.
WELBOURNE, JA The brief facts of this case are that on the 16th day of August, 2006 at about 12.15 pm the complainant and her sister whilst returning from a hotel at Kenyasi, were accosted by the Appellant.
The Appellant pulled out a cutlass and asked to surrender all they had on them.
They hesitated but the Appellant threatened to chop off their heads.
The complainant’s sister managed to escape.
Subsequently the complainant removed Gh¢25,000.00 and gave same to the Appellant.
Whilst removing the money her mobile phone fell from her pocket and the Appellant ordered her to give it to him.
When she attempted to pick it for him, the Appellant hit the complainant with the cutlass at her back and she gave the phone to him.
After collecting the phone, he fled the scene.
Three days after the incident, the Appellant was arrested and the case reported to the police.
The Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced by the trial High Court, Kumasi on the 25th of October 2007 to a term of 27 years with hard labour (IHL) for the offence of Robbery; contrary to Section 149 of Act29 of 1960 as amended.
Dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, not the conviction, the Appellant has appealed against the sentence on the sole ground that: “The sentence is harsh and excessive having regard to the circumstance of the case which has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice”. Section 149 of the Criminal and other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29/60) as amended by Act 646, states that “Whoever commits robbery shall be guilty of first degree felony.
Section 150 defines robbery andsection149 (1) of the same Act 29 as amended by provides that: “Whoever commits robbery is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction on trial summarily or on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, and where the offence is committed by the use of an offensive weapon or offensive missile, the offender shall upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than fifteen years”. From the facts, the Appellant has admitted the offence, and the phone; one of the subject matter of the offence of the robbery is retrieved from the Appellant.
The Appellant was convicted and sentenced summarily upon his own admission of the commission of the offence.
This has saved the Court a lot of time, stress and valuable state resources.
It is also pertinent to note that where a statute has prescribed the precise punishment to be meted out to offenders, it is inc