IGNATIUS HOWE v. THE REPUBLIC

J U D G M E N T

APALOO, JA: In this appeal, the appellant Ignatius Howe is seeking the reversal of his conviction by the Cape Coast High Court on 21st May 2007. Upon conviction the High Court sentenced the appellant to a term of 45 years IHL on the single count of robbery with which he was charged.

The appellant had then been charged with robbery contrary to section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 as amended by Act 646 of 2003.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 22nd June, 2005 about 1:30am to 2:00am the appellant and some other persons who were armed, attacked the house of the victim, brutalized him and members of his family and made away with cash equivalent to GH¢ 585.00, clothes and mobile phones. The victim and his son aged 11 years claimed they recognized the appellant from the group that attacked the household. The appellant was therefore charged with the offence after police investigations.

The appellant filed two main grounds of appeal together with 7 items Counsel referred to as particulars of grounds of appeal. In order not to nullify the notice of appeal we shall convert the 7 items into grounds of appeal. We state also that the ground improperly formulated as “the judgment was against the weight of evidence” will be substituted by the appropriate formulation known to the criminal law to read that “the conviction cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.”

Upon making the relevant corrections on the notice of appeal, the following shall be deemed to be the grounds of appeal in this appeal.

That the conviction cannot be supported by the evidence on record.

The trial Judge did not adequately consider the case of the appellant.

The trial Judge failed to consider whether short of believing the story of the appellant that story is reasonably probable.

The prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof.

The trial Judge erred in finding that the appellant was among robbers because he had been identified by PW1 and PW2 even though there were other persons present at the scene of the crime who did not identify the appellant at the identification parade.

The trial Judge erred in dismissing the submission of no case.

The sentence was harsh and excessive.

After considering the reharshed grounds of appeal we shall nevertheless strike out ground 5 for being utterly argumentative and not disclosing a reasonable ground of appeal.

Counsel for the appellant in arguing his grounds 2, 4 and 5 together submitted th