JOHN BONUAH @ ERIC ANNOR BLAY v. THE REPUBLIC
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- WOOD (MRS.) CJ, (PRESIDING)
- DOTSE, JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- GBADEGBE, JSC
- BENIN, JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Appellate Procedure
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Appellant was convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. After losing his initial appeal on jurisdictional grounds, he appealed again on the basis of errors in the trial process and inadequacies in the trial record. The Supreme Court, while recognizing the procedural complexities and missing records, opted for a conditional discharge rather than a full acquittal or re-trial.
WOOD (MRS) CJ:-
On the 28th of February, 2002, the Appellant and one Billy who is at large, were tried and convicted by the Sunyani High Court of the offences of conspiracy to commit robbery to ss. 23 and 149, and robbery contrary to s. 149 of Act 29/60 and sentenced to life imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. Appellant unsuccessfully appealed against the sentence, on grounds of its harshness and excessiveness, as he contended, “given the circumstances of the case”. He however lost the appeal on the jurisdictional ground that:
“…appellant committed this offence in 2002. At that time the minimum sentence for robbery with small arms where there was no death was life imprisonment. Even though the law has such been amended with regard to sentencing, we do not have jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence lawfully imposed on the appellant in 2002.”
Dissatisfied, he has with leave, this time around, appealed the conviction on the basis that:
“The Court of Appeal made a serious error of law for refusing to look at the appeal against conviction because:
The Record of proceedings from the High Court, Sunyani produced by the Registrar was incomplete due to the non-availability of the other relevant records. The Appellant, reeling under irrevocable sentence of Life imprisonment must not suffer as a result of incompetence of the Record of Proceedings.
There was no evidence to show that he conspired with any other person.
The trial Court failed to order a MINI TRIAL to determine admissibility or otherwise of the alleged confession statement of the Appellant – and this is fatal to the subsequent conviction.
The trial Court failed to investigate the defence of ALIBI that was given right at the onset of his arrest.”
Given the appellant’s unfettered constitutional right to use all legitimate avenues to assert his legal rights, we do not begrudge him for challenging the conviction, with the object of having it stripped of legitimacy, root and branch. What we find objectionable is the charge of dereliction of duty leveled against the appellate justices who heard his appeal, when on his own clear choosing, the appeal ground and indeed the arguments marshalled in support hereof were all targeted at only the sentence. Indeed, at the hearing, the appellant did not, in the slightest sense of the word, impugn the validity of the conviction. Contrarily, the appeal grounds and the supporting arguments thereof, coupled with the record of appeal the court was s