JUDGMENT
This court granted the appellant herein leave extension of time within which to appeal
against his conviction. Upon securing the leave the instant appeal was lodged, within
the time stated.
Appellant per his notice of appeal filed on the 4/11/2022 contains the following as his
grounds of appeal.
(1) That he is a first time offender.
(2) That he pleaded guilty simplicita to the charges hence did not waste the
resources of the State and the Court’s time.
(3) That the cost of the damage was GH¢80.00.
(4) That the 5 years sentence imposed is very harsh.
A brief background of the instant case has it that, appellant was charged with 2 counts
of offences.
Count 1 – Unlawful Entry Contrary to Section 152 of Act 29/60.
Count 2 – Causing Unlawful Damage Contrary to Section 172(a) of Act 29/60.
The brief facts are that accused on the 19/07/2021 unlawfully broke into the ceiling of
complainant and hid there. He was however detected and brought down. It was
alleged he had a knife but was not charged with it.
When put before court, appellant pleaded guilty to the two counts preferred against
him. The trial Magistrate on the 22/07/2022 convicted appellant on his own plea of
guilty on count 1 only and sentenced him to 5 years IHL.
The trial Court Magistrate took into consideration the fact that the offence of breaking
into the homes of people has become rampart in the jurisdiction, therefore the sentence
of 5 years IHL was to serve as a deterrent to others. It is against the above decision
that the convict appeals to this court.
The appellant is not represented by a lawyer. Having studied the facts and the
grounds of appeal this Court hold the view that the 5 years IHL sentence handed
down by the court on the appellant is not only harsh but excessive.
My reasons are that;
a) Appellant is a first time offender
b) No harm was occasioned to the complainant.
Indeed, when a particular crime becomes elevated and affects the community the
courts have duty to speak loud through its sentence to deter like minds; hence the
decision of the trial court to punish the appellant in the manner it did.
However, the said sentence of five years IHL appears harsh and excessive based on
the context of the crime.
Appellant has no previous criminal record of any nature. The alleged knife he is said
to possess was brought to the police by the complainant several days after appellant
was arrested. Perusing the record of appeal, it revealed that the c
