Try asking the following...
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
DZAMEFE, JA
The appellant, Benjamin Dankwah together with Akwasi Prempeh were jointly charged for conspiracy contrary to Section 23(1) and Section 149 of Act 29, 1960 and Robbery contrary to Section 149 of Act 29 of 1960 as amended by Act 646 of 2003.
Plea: The two accused persons pleaded guilty with explanation to both counts.
Facts
There are no facts recorded in the record of appeal.
COUNT ONE
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE TO WIT ROBBERY: Contrary to Section 23 (1) and Section 149 of Act 29 of 1960
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
BENJAMIN DANKWAH, Driver, AKWASI PREMPEH, Driver’s Mate: on or about the 23rd of February, 2007 at Abrepo in Kumasi, in the Ashanti Region did agree with a common purpose to rob a Taxi Cab.
COUNT TWO
STATEMNET OF OFFENCE
ROBBERY: Contrary to Section 149 of Act 29 of 1960 as amended by Act 646 of 2003.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
BENJAMIN DANKWAH, Driver, AKWASI PREMPEH, Driver’s Mate: on or about the 23rd of February, 2007 at Brofoyedru in Kumasi, in the Ashanti Region did rob Kwabena Takyi of his Opel Kadett Taxi Cab No. GT 9803Q.
By Court: Each accused persons are convicted on their own plea of guilty with an explanation. Accused persons are therefore sentenced to a term of 24 years 1HL on each of the two counts, both sentences are to run concurrently.
This is all we have on the record of appeal as the proceedings from the trial, held at the High Court, Kumasi on Friday, the 2nd day of March 2007 before H/L Justice K. A. Pobih
Appeal
The appellant Benjamin Dankwah dissatisfied with the judgment appealed against the conviction and sentence pursuant to leave of this court dated 22nd May 2018.
Grounds of Appeal
i. The court below grossly erred in law in accepting the alleged guilty plea of the appellant who was not represented by counsel without first explaining to him the nature of the charge or charges and the procedure which would follow the acceptance of the plea of guilty, a non-compliance with a mandatory statutory provision which has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.
ii. The court below erred in law in not recording in writing the statement made by the appellant in answer to the two charges as he allegedly pleaded guilty with the explanation as borne by the record thus rendering the record of proceedings incomplete and null and void, a non-compliance with imperative statutory provision which had occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice.
iii. The learned trial ju