EMMANUEL AGYARE v. THE REPUBLIC
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- 1. ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.) JA. (PRESIDING)
- 2. A. B. POKU-ACHEAMPONG, JA.
- 3. SAMUEL K.A. ASIEDU, JA
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This criminal appeal from the High Court of Kumasi concerns a security guard employed by Mangada Security Company and stationed at Kiravi Restaurant who, with accomplice Vincent Awuni, robbed and sexually assaulted a 14-year-old resident. After trial, the High Court acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant of robbery, conspiracy to defile, and defilement, imposing a 20-year sentence. On appeal, counsel largely abandoned challenges to conviction, arguing only mitigation based on alleged reform and remorse. The Court of Appeal, per Asiedu JA, noted parts of the defense record were missing but immaterial, affirmed that knives and a machete are offensive weapons under Act 29, and reviewed sentencing principles and statutory minima. Emphasizing aggravating factors including breach of trust by a security guard and the vulnerable victim, the Court held the sentence was not harsh or excessive, admonished that unproven post-conviction reform is not a ground for reduction, and dismissed the appeal, with Domakyaareh JA and Poku-Acheampong JA concurring.
ASIEDU, JA.
My lords, this is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Kumasi delivered on the 26th day of May 2009. The appellant in this matter was charged together with one David Aweh, on the 13th day of August 2009 with four counts of offences, that is: Conspiracy to commit crime, to wit: Robbery, contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29; Robbery, contrary to section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29; Conspiracy to commit crime, to wit: Defilement contrary to section 23(1) and 101 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 and Defilement, contrary to section 101 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29. After the trial, the learned High Court Judge found the appellant not guilty on the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery and therefore acquitted and discharged the appellant on that count. The appellant was however found guilty on the other charges levelled against him. He was therefore convicted by the trial Judge and sentenced to serve a prison term of twenty (20) years.
The appellant initially filed a Notice of Appeal on the grounds that:
1. The conviction is against the weight of evidence adduced during appeal.
2. Additional grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal.
Pursuant to leave of the court granted on the 30th day of October 2019, counsel for the appellant filed two additional grounds of appeal on behalf of the appellant in the following terms:
1. Mitigation of sentence as the accused has undergone reform and has shown remorse.
2. The conviction of the accused person has occasioned miscarriage of justice.
With the leave of the court, granted on the 25th day of January 2021, counsel filed written submissions on the 26th day of January 2021 on behalf of the appellant whiles the Attorney for the Republic filed a Response on behalf of the Republic on the 16th February 2021. It is interesting to remark that in his written submissions, counsel for the appellant seems to have abandoned all the grounds of appeal except the first additional ground of appeal. At page 2 of his written submissions counsel stated, among others, that:
“My lords, given the number of years spent in prison we have decided to argue the first additional grounds of appeal which is for mitigation of sentence as the accused has undergone reforms and has shown remorse”
Before examining the grounds of appeal which the appellant has placed before this court, we wish to observe that