ERIC TETTEH @ MOSES AGBOMEH v. THE REPUBLIC

IRENE CHARITY LARBI (MRS. ) J. A

(1) This is an appeal emanating from the decision of the High Court, Sekondi dated 5th May, 2004. (2. ) The Appellant was convicted of the offence of Robbery: contrary to Section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) as Amended by Act 646 of 2003. Facts(3. ) On 18th January, 2004, one Gambo, a member of a watchdog Committee of North Kwesimentsim spotted the accused persons who were four in number at 1: 30am.

He confronted them.

The accused persons told him that they were also on operation.

Not deterred by their answer he insisted to know more from them whereby the accused persons pointed a pistol at him.

He told them that if anything should happen, he knows them very well and would be held responsible.

The accused entered the house of one Mr. Cole but before Gambo could rally the members of the watchdog Committee members they had gone.

That very night, about 2pm, House number 123 PT Kwesimintsim was invaded by a team of four robbers who made away with a lot of properties including that of one Alice Micah and some others.

After the robbery, an alarm was raised which attracted the Committee members to the scene.

The Police were informed and they led the Police to the hideout of the accused persons.

In the process of arresting them, one of the accused persons managed to escape.

After investigations, the three who were arrested were charged with the offence of robbery and put before the Court for trial. (4. ) The Appellant pleaded not guilty but after the trial, he was found guilty and convicted.

He was sentenced to a term of twenty years I. H. L. On 15/11/17, the Appellant, pursuant to leave of the Court dated 7th November, 2017 filed a Notice of Appeal on the following grounds: -

(a) His Lordship should have given weight to mitigation of sentence and the fact that the Appellant was a first time offender and that was his first brush with the law, he has subsequently repented from his sins and by giving him minimum sentence and that occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

b) The sentence of 20, 25 and 30 years are excessive. (5. ) It is apparent that the first ground of appeal is not very clear for lack of it being concise.

However my understanding of it is that the appeal in effect is against sentence and not conviction.

The conclusion drawn from the Appellant’s written submission is that he was convicted for robbery in three separate robbery cases and was sentenced to 20, 25 and 35 years respectively.