GH - ERIC ATSU AMEGBE & OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC

SOWAH, J.A:

On 7th July 2013, the Financial Division of the High Court, Accra, found the appellant in this appeal who was A2 at the trial court and three others [A1, A4 and A5] guilty on the charge of Conspiracy to steal contrary to Section 23 (1) and 124 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 Act 29 as amended by NLCD 398 paragraph 4 and one count of Stealing contrary to Section 124 (1) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 Act 29 as amended by NLCD 398 paragraph 4. A3 was found guilty on one separate count with stealing.

The appellant was sentenced to 4 years IHL on each of the two counts to run concurrently. A Restitution Order was also made for GH¢7000.00 already refunded by the appellant to be paid to the Judicial Service.

Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the instant appeal which can be found at page 480A of the record of appeal. The grounds of appeal are as follows:

a. The conviction is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.

b. The trial Judge failed to evaluate and appreciate the evidence and case of the 2nd accused.

c. The prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the charges preferred against the 2nd accused.

d. The trial Judge was selective or biased in his sentencing of the 2nd accused.

e. Further grounds to be filed on receipt of judgment and records of proceedings.

It must be put it on record that, the appellant did not file additional grounds of appeal as indicated in his Notice of Appeal. Rather, in his counsels written submissions in support of the appeal which was filed on 21st August 2014, he asked to be permitted to abandon all the grounds on conviction and focus on sentence only.

This is what counsel for the appellant said in the introductory paragraph to his written submissions:

“Your Lordships, it is our humble prayer to permit the appellant to abandon the ground on conviction and focus on sentence only.

In the premises supra, it is our humble prayer that his sentence be reconsidered and reduced.

It is the evidence of the appellant that even though he had no knowledge of the conspiracy from the inception as has been held by the trial judge at page 469 last paragraph line 4 when he said “I accept the evidence of the prosecution that the plan was from the very genesis hatched by A1 and A5. My Lords, the trial judge further said in that paragraph which concludes at 470 that A2, (the appellant herein)…”blindly pre-audited and processed them for payments”. My Lords we su