HARRISON TAWIAH v. THE REPUBLIC
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE SENYO DZAMEFE J. A. (PRESIDING)
- JUSTICE G. SIMON SUURBAAREH J. A.
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) J. A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Jennifer A. Dodoo (JA) authored the Court of Appeal’s judgment in a criminal matter arising from convictions for conspiracy (section 23(1)) and robbery (section 149) under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The appellant and three others were convicted by the Circuit Court on 9 September 2013 and sentenced to 20 years for conspiracy and 30 years for robbery, concurrently. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentences to five and ten years, respectively, noting the appellant’s passive role as the driver and absence of aggravating circumstances. In this further appeal, despite missing lower‑court records evidenced by a Registrar’s affidavit, the Court of Appeal applied guidance from precedent to reject acquittal based on lost proceedings and declined to disturb concurrent findings, emphasizing Exhibit D in which the appellant admitted facilitating several robbery operations. Addressing sentencing, the court held that the High Court’s ten‑year term for robbery was wrong in principle because section 149(1) prescribes a fifteen‑year minimum when an offensive weapon is involved. It substituted a fifteen‑year sentence, effective from 9 September 2013, and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT
DODOO, JA (MRS)
The Appellant and 3 others were arraigned before the Circuit court on charges of charges of Conspiracy to Commit Crime and Robbery under Sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Upon conviction on 9th September, 2013, they were each sentenced to 20 years IHL on the conspiracy charge and 30 years on the robbery charge to run concurrently.
An appeal was lodged on Appellant’s behalf at the High Court which proceeded to reduce the sentences to 5 years on the conspiracy charge and 10 years on the robbery charge. A further appeal has been brought to this court against both the conviction and sentence. The grounds of appeal argued on the Appellant’s behalf were as follows:
i. The conviction was wrong and unwarranted.
ii. The evidence at the trial did not support the conviction
iii. There was miscarriage of justice
iv. The sentence is too harsh,
It was the Appellant’s submission that the prosecution failed to lead evidence and to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he and the other convicts actually conspired to commit robbery.
He contended that the evidence of the star witness was full of inconsistencies as he had told the court that he had withdrawn money from the bank and had been robbed on 15th April, 2012. However, the evidence showed that the money had been withdrawn on 14th April, 2012. Furthermore, the Complainant had only identified one person, who happened to be the 3rd Accused person, yet the judge had stated in his judgment that the Complainant had positively identified all of them and passed a harsh sentence on them.
The Appellant submitted that at the High Court which heard the appeal in the case of Agbeko Manah and Harrison Tawiah vrs. The Republic, the State Attorney had stated the following facts:
(a) The Judgment of the trial court cannot be defended because the conviction cannot be supported having regard to the evidence on record.
(b) The evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to merit the inference of guilt on the part of the Appellants.
(c) There exist material inconsistencies on the part of the evidence adduced by the witnesses for the prosecution.
(d) The trial judge relied on purported inconsistencies on the part of the defence. However, the inconsistencies were not material vis-à-vis the elements of the offence under consideration.
The Appellant argued that his conviction was a travesty of justice and prayed for an acquittal.
He stated further that the senten