HEYNE FRANK v. THE REPUBLIC

J U D G M E N T

APALOO, JA: This is an appeal from the decision of the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal dated 15th January 2010. The appellant was convicted on two counts of offences related to narcotics. The counts were;

1. Attempted exportation of Narcotic Drug without lawful authority.

2. Possession of Narcotic Drug without Lawful Authority.

Both counts were contrary to Sections 56(a), 1(1) and 2(1) respectively of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990 PNDCL 236. The Court below convicted the appellant and sentenced him to a term of 14 years IHL on each count to run concurrently.

In his notice of appeal, the appellant raised four main grounds of appeal, viz;

That the conviction ought to be set aside on the ground that it cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

That the Regional Tribunal erred when it relied on the evidence of PW3, D/Insp. C. S. Baidoo in making its decision when the witness was unavailable for cross examination at the trial.

That the Regional Tribunal erred when it relied on Exhibit ‘E’ which was destroyed and unavailable to be cross-examined upon at the trial.

That the Ghana Standards Board Report [Exhibit ‘C’] contained inconsistencies which made it unreliable.

Briefly the appellant was arrested in the evening of 10th December, 2006 at the Kotoka International Airport. He was in the process of boarding an Ethiopian Airline Flight to Kenya. He was randomly chosen for a hand swipe test which allegedly indicated that he had come into contact with cocaine. His body and hand luggage was searched but nothing incriminating was found. A bag was retrieved from the airline counter at the departure hall, in which a quantity of white substance suspected to be cocaine was found in a hidden compartment. The prosecution claimed that the appellant identified the bag as his. He was subsequently arraigned before the Regional Tribunal.

Counsel for the appellant in his submissions filed in this court argued that the conviction ought to be set aside on the ground that it cannot be supported having regard to evidence. In the context of this ground of appeal, the appellant states that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had in his possession 7.078 kg of cocaine. In that case the prosecution needed to establish that;

(a) The white substance allegedly found in the bag was cocaine.

(b) That the bag (Exhibit ‘E’) was in the possession of the appellant.

Counsel submitted that